Shabbat 181

מהו דתימא בטולי בטלה מחשבתו קמ"ל כל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה

you might say, His intention has been cancelled;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he forgot it. ');">¹</span> hence we are informed that whenever one does anything, he does it with his original purpose. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: R. Meir maintained that one is culpable even if he carries out a single [grain of] wheat for sowing. But that is obvious, [for] we learnt, WHATEVER ITS SIZE? — You might say, WHATEVER ITS SIZE is to exclude [the standard of] the quantity of a dried fig, yet even so [one is not guilty unless there is as much as an olive: hence we are informed [otherwise]. R. Isaac son of Rab Judah demurred: If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That according to the Mishnah culpability depends on one's intentions. ');">²</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחייב היה רבי מאיר אף במוציא חטה אחת לזריעה פשיטא כל שהוא תנן מהו דתימא כל שהוא לאפוקי מגרוגרת ולעולם עד דאיכא כזית קמ"ל מתקיף לה רב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה אלא מעתה חישב להוציא כל ביתו הכי נמי דלא מיחייב עד דמפיק לכוליה התם בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם:

if one declares his intention of carrying out his whole house, is he really not culpable unless he carries out his whole house? — There his intention is null vis a vis that of all men. BUT ALL OTHERS ARE NOT CULPABLE THEREFOR SAVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS STANDARD. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated a general rule: That which is not fit to put away, and such is not [generally] put away, yet it did become fit to a certain person,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He found a use for it. ');">³</span> and he did put it away, and then another came and carried it out, the latter is rendered liable through the former's intention.

וכל אדם אין חייבין עליו אלא כשיעורו: מתניתין דלא כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר דתניא כלל א"ר שמעון בן אלעזר כל שאינו כשר להצניע ואין מצניעין כמוהו והוכשר לזה והצניעו ובא אחר והוציא נתחייב זה במחשבתו של זה

Raba said in R. Nahman's name: If one carries out as much as a dried fig for food, and then decides to [use it] for sowing, or the reverse, he is liable. But that is obvious: consider it from this point of view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'go here'. ');">⁴</span> [and] there is the standard, and consider it from that point of view, [and] there is the standard? — You might say, [Both] removal and depositing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. I, n. 5. ');">⁵</span> must be done with the same intention, which is absent [here]: hence he informs us [otherwise].

אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן הוציא כגרוגרת לאכילה ונמלך עליה לזריעה אי נמי לזריעה ונמלך עליה לאכילה חייב פשיטא זיל הכא איכא שיעורא וזיל הכא איכא שיעורא מהו דתימא בעינן עקירה והנחה בחדא מחשבה והא ליכא קמ"ל

Raba asked: What if one carries out half as much as a dried fig for sowing, but it swells<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the size of a dried fig — i.e., before he deposited it, and he changes his mind likewise before depositing it. ');">⁶</span> and he decides [to use it] for food? Can you argue, only there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the preceding case. ');">⁷</span> is he culpable, because consider it from this point of view [and] there is the standard, and consider it from that point of view and there is the standard: whereas here, since it did not contain the standard of food when he carried it out, he is not culpable. Or perhaps, since he would be culpable for his intention of sowing if he were silent and did not intend it [for another purpose],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Intention must be verbally expressed, and is not merely mental. ');">⁸</span>

בעי רבא הוציא חצי גרוגרת לזריעה ותפחה ונמלך עליה לאכילה מהו את"ל התם הוא דמיחייב דזיל הכא איכא שיעורא וזיל הכא איכא שיעורא הכא כיון דבעידנא דאפקה לא הוה ביה שיעור אכילה לא מיחייב או דילמא כיון דאילו אישתיק ולא חשיב עליה מיחייב אמחשבה דזריעה השתא נמי מיחייב

he is still culpable now? Now, should you rule that since he would be culpable for his intention of sowing if he were silent and did not intend it for another purpose, he is still culpable now: what if one carries out as much as a dried fig for food and it shrivels up and he decides [to keep it] for sowing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 4. ');">⁹</span> Here it is certain that if he remained silent he would not be culpable on account of his original intention; or perhaps we regard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'go after'. ');">¹⁰</span> the present [only]; hence he is culpable? Should you rule that we regard the present, hence he is culpable: what if one carries out as much as a dried fig for food, and it shrivels and then swells up again? Does [the principle of] disqualification operate with respect to the Sabbath or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The principle of disqualification (lit., 'rejection') is that once a thing or a person has been rendered unfit in respect to a certain matter, it or he remains so, even if circumstances change. Thus here, when it shrivels, it becomes unfit to cause liability, being less than the standard: does it remain so or not? (Of course, if one carries it out thus and deposits it on another occasion, he is certainly culpable. But here it became unfit in the course of one act, and the question is whether it can become fit again for the completion of this same act.) ');">¹¹</span>

ואת"ל כיון דאילו אישתיק ולא חשיב עליה מיחייב אמחשבה דזריעה השתא נמי מיחייב הוציא כגרוגרת לאכילה וצמקה ונמלך עליה לזריעה מהו הכא ודאי כי אישתיק אמחשבה קמייתא לא מיחייב או דילמא בתר השתא אזלינן ומיחייב ואת"ל בתר השתא אזלינן ומיחייב הוציא כגרוגרת לאכילה וצמקה וחזרה ותפחה מהו יש דיחוי לענין שבת או אין דיחוי לענין שבת תיקו:

The question stands over. Raba asked R. Nahman: What if one throws <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos. ');">¹²</span> of the size of an olive into an unclean house? In respect of what [is the question]? If in respect of the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether his throwing is a culpable act. ');">¹³</span>

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן זרק כזית תרומה לבית טמא מהו למאי אי לענין שבת כגרוגרת בעינן אי לענין טומאה כביצה אוכלין בעינן לעולם לענין שבת וכגון דאיכא פחות מכביצה אוכלין והאי משלימו לביצה מאי מדמצטרף לענין טומאה מיחייב נמי לענין שבת או דילמא כל לענין שבת כגרוגרת בעינן א"ל תניתוה אבא שאול אומר שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים שיעורן כגרוגרת ואמאי לימא מדלענין

we require the size of a dried fig? If in respect of defilement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it becomes unclean. ');">¹⁴</span> we require food as much as an egg? — After all, it is in respect of the Sabbath, [the circumstances being] e.g., that there is food less than an egg in quantity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Already in the house. ');">¹⁵</span> and this makes it up to an egg in quantity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it alights near the first, touching it, and so both become unclean. ');">¹⁶</span> What then: since it combines in respect of defilement he is also culpable in respect to the Sabbath; or perhaps in all matters relating to the Sabbath we require the size of a dried fig? — Said he to him, We have learnt it: Abba Saul said: As for the two loaves of bread,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXIII, 17. ');">¹⁷</span> and the shewbread,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Ex. XXV, 30. ');">¹⁸</span> their standard is the size of a dried fig.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if one carries them out on the Sabbath, this is the minimum quantity involving culpability. ');">¹⁹</span> But why so: let us say, since in respect of