Shabbat 144

נתכוין להגביה את התלוש וחתך את המחובר פטור לחתוך את התלוש וחתך את המחובר רבא אמר פטור אביי אמר חייב רבא אמר פטור דהא לא נתכוון לחתיכה דאיסורא אביי אמר חייב דהא קמיכוין לחתיכה בעלמא

If one intended to lift up something detached, but cut off something attached [to the soil],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter is a forbidden act on the Sabbath. Rashi: e.g., if a knife fell down amidst growing corn, and whilst intending to lift it up one cut the corn. ');">¹</span> he is not culpable. [If he intended] to cut something detached, but cut something attached [instead],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Tam: e.g., he thought it was a detached bundle of corn, but after cutting it he discovered that it had been attached. ');">²</span>

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתניא חומר שבת משאר מצות וחומר שאר מצות משבת חומר שבת משאר מצות שהשבת עשה שתים בהעלם אחד חייב על כל אחת ואחת מה שאין כן בשאר מצות וחומר שאר מצות משבת שבשאר מצות שגג בלא מתכוין חייב מה שאין כן בשבת:

Raba ruled: He is not culpable; Abaye maintained: He is culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Throughout the Talmud Abaye's view is always quoted before Raba's. Hence it is suggested that either the order should be reversed here, or Rabbah (Abaye's teacher) should be read instead of Raba, v. Marginal Gloss. ');">³</span> Raba ruled, He is not culpable, since he had no intention of a prohibited cutting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas in order to be culpable he must have intended to do what he did, save that his offence was unintentional either because he did not know that it was the Sabbath or that that action is forbidden on the Sabbath. ');">⁴</span>

אמר מר חומר שבת משאר מצות שהשבת עשה שתים בהעלם אחד חייב על כל אחת ואחת מה שאין כן בשאר מצות היכי דמי אילימא דעבד קצירה וטחינה דכוותה גבי שאר מצות אכל חלב ודם הכא תרתי מיחייב והכא תרתי מיחייב אלא שאר מצות דלא מיחייב אלא חדא היכי דמי דאכל חלב וחלב דכוותה גבי שבת דעבד קצירה וקצירה הכא חדא מיחייב והכא חדא מיחייב

Abaye maintained: He is culpable, since he had the intention of cutting in general.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas to avoid culpability he must have had no intention of cutting at all. ');">⁵</span> Raba said, How do I know it? Because it was taught: [In one respect] the Sabbath is more stringent than other precepts; [in another respect] other precepts are more stringent than the Sabbath. The Sabbath is more stringent than other precepts in that if one performs two [labours] in one state of unawareness, he is culpable on account of each separately; this is not so in the case of other precepts. Other precepts are more stringent than the Sabbath, for in their case if an injunction is unwittingly and unintentionally violated, atonement must be made: this is not so with respect to the Sabbath.

לעולם דעבד קצירה וטחינה ומאי מה שאין כן בשאר מצות אע"ז וכדרבי אמי דא"ר אמי זיבח וקיטר וניסך בהעלמה אחת אינו חייב אלא אחת

The Master said: 'The Sabbath is more stringent than other precepts in that if one performs two [labours] in one state of unawareness, he is culpable on account of each separately: this is not so in the case of other precepts.' How is this meant? Shall we say, that he performed reaping and grinding? Then an analogous violation of other precepts would be the partaking of heleb and blood — then in both cases two [penalties] are incurred! But how is it possible in the case of other precepts that only one liability is incurred? If one ate heleb twice;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In one state of unawareness, not being reminded in between that heleb is forbidden. ');">⁶</span> then by analogy, with respect to the Sabbath [it means] that he performed reaping twice — then in each case only one liability is incurred? — After all, it means that he performed reaping and grinding, and what is meant by 'this is not so in the case of other precepts'? This refers to idolatry, and is in accordance with R. Ammi, who said: If one sacrificed, burnt incense, and made libations [to an idol] in one state of unawareness, he is only liable to one [sacrifice].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he performed a number of services. ');">⁷</span>

במאי אוקימתא בע"ז אימא סיפא חומר בשאר מצות שבשאר מצות שגג בלא מתכוין חייב מה שאין כן בשבת האי שגג בלא מתכוין דע"ז היכי דמי אילימא כסבור בית הכנסת הוא והשתחוה לה הרי לבו לשמים ואלא דחזי אנדרטא וסגיד לה היכי דמי אי דקבלה עליה באלוה מזיד הוא ואי דלא קבלה עליה באלוה לאו כלום הוא

How have you explained it: as referring to idolatry? Then consider the second clause: Other precepts are more stringent [than the Sabbath], for in their case if an injunction is unwittingly and unintentionally violated, atonement must be made: this is not so with respect to the Sabbath. Now, how is an unwitting and unintentional transgression of idolatry possible? Shall we say that one thought it [sc. an idolatrous shrine] to be a synagogue and bowed down to it — then his heart was to Heaven! But if he saw a royal statue and bowed down to it — what are the circumstances? If he accepted it as a god, he is a wilful sinner; while if he did not accept it as a god, he has not committed idolatry at all!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is nothing'. ');">⁸</span> Hence it must mean [that he worshipped it idolatrously] through love or fear:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this is called unwitting and unintentional, for it was unwitting in so far as he thought this permissible. ');">⁹</span>

אלא מאהבה ומיראה הניחא לאביי דאמר חייב אלא לרבא דאמר פטור מאי איכא למימר אלא באומר מותר משא"כ בשבת דפטור לגמרי

now this agrees with Abaye's view that a penalty is incurred;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. 61b. ');">¹⁰</span> but on Raba's view that there is no culpability, what can you say? Rather it must refer to one who thinks that it [sc. idolatry] is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if he was brought up among heathens. Since he has never known of any prohibition, it is regarded not only as unwitting but as unintentional too. ');">¹¹</span>

ע"כ לא בעא מיני' רבא מרב נחמן אלא אי לחיובי חדא אי לחיובי תרתי אבל מפטרי לגמרי לא

Then 'this is not so in the case of the Sabbath' means that there is no liability at all! Yet when Raba questioned R. Nahman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' About such a case. v. supra 70b. Where one forgets both the Sabbath and the forbidden labours it is tantamount to ignorance of the Sabbath altogether, and is thus analogous to the belief that idolatry is permitted. ');">¹²</span> it was only whether one is liable to one [sacrifice] or to two, but certainly not to exempt him completely!