Shabbat 187

ששגג על האוכלין והזיד על הכלי מתקיף לה רב אשי והא אף על הכלי קתני אלא א"ר אשי כגון ששגג בזה ובזה ונודע לו וחזר ונודע לו ובפלוגתא דרבי יוחנן ור"ש בן לקיש:

where he sinned unwittingly in respect of the food, but deliberately in respect of the utensil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And 'liable'- means to death, for the wilful desecration of the Sabbath. ');">¹</span> R. Ashi demurred: But it is stated, 'in respect of the utensil too'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies the same liability. ');">²</span> Rather said R. Ashi: E.g.. where he sinned unwittingly in respect of both, then [one offence] became known to him, and subsequently the other became known to him, this being dependent on the controversy of R. Johanan and Resh Lakish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra 71b. Thus according to R. Johanan he is liable to two sin-offerings if he is apprised of each in succession, and then comes to make atonement for both. But in the view of Resh Lakish he is liable to two sacrifices only if he is apprised of one, makes atonement, and is then apprised of the other (Tosaf.). ');">³</span>

את החי במטה פטור אף על המטה: לימא מתני' רבי נתן היא ולא רבנן דתניא המוציא בהמה חיה ועוף לרה"ר בין חיין ובין שחוטין חייב רבי נתן אומר על שחוטין חייב ועל חיין פטור שהחי נושא את עצמו אמר רבא אפילו תימא רבנן ע"כ לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי נתן אלא בבהמה חיה ועוף דמשרבטי נפשייהו אבל אדם חי דנושא את עצמו אפילו רבנן מודו

[IF ONE CARRIES OUT] A LIVING PERSON IN A BED, HE IS NOT CULPABLE EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE BED. Shall we say that our Mishnah is [according to] R. Nathan, but not the Rabbis? For it was taught: If one carries out an animal, beast,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Behemah means a domestic animal; hayyah, a non-domestic animal. ');">⁴</span> or bird into the street, whether alive or [ritually] killed, he is liable [to a sacrifice]; R. Nathan said: For killed ones he is liable, but for live ones he is exempt, because the living [creature] carries itself! Said Raba, You may even say [that it agrees with] the Rabbis: the Rabbis differ from R. Nathan only in respect of an animal, beast, and bird, which stiffen themselves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Making themselves a dead weight, and thus they are a real burden. ');">⁵</span> but as for a living person, who carries himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He has natural buoyancy. ');">⁶</span>

א"ל רב אדא בר אהבה לרבא והא דתנן בן בתירא מתיר בסוס ותניא בן בתירא מתיר בסוס מפני שהוא עושה בו מלאכה שאין חייבין עליו חטאת ואמר רבי יוחנן בן בתירא ורבי נתן אמרו דבר אחד ואי אמרת דלא פליגי רבנן עליה דר' נתן אלא בבהמה חיה ועוף משום דמשרבטי נפשייהו מאי איריא בן בתירא ורבי נתן והאמרת אפילו רבנן מודו כי א"ר יוחנן בסוס המיוחד לעופות ומי איכא סוס המיוחד לעופות אין איכא (דבי וייאדן

even the Rabbis agree. R. Adda b. Ahabah observed to Raba, But as to what we learnt: Ben Bathyra permits [it] in the case of a horse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One may not sell his cattle to a Gentile, because they are used for ploughing, and thereby lose the Sabbath rest to which they are entitled (v. Ex. XX, 10). Horses, however, were not used for ploughing in Mishnaic times, but merely for riding. ');">⁷</span> And it was taught: Ben Bathyra permits [it] in the case of a horse, because it is employed for work which does not entail liability to a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Riding being only Rabbinically prohibited. ');">⁸</span> And R. Johanan observed, Ben Bathyra and R. Nathan said the same thing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that it is not a labour to carry a living being, because it carries itself. ');">⁹</span>

א"ר יוחנן ומודה ר' נתן בכפות א"ל רב אדא בר מתנה לאביי והא הני פרסאי דכמאן דכפיתי דמו וא"ר יוחנן בן בתירא ור' נתן אמרו דבר אחד התם רמות רוחא הוא דנקיט להו דההוא פרדשכא דרתח מלכא עילויה ורהיט תלתא פרסי בכרעיה:

Now if you say that the Rabbis disagree with R. Nathan only in respect of an animal, beast, or bird, because they stiffen themselves, why particularly Ben Bathyra and R. Nathan: Surely you have said that even the Rabbis agree? — When R. Johanan said [thus] it was in respect of a horse that is set apart for [carrying] birds. But are there horses set apart for birds? Yes, there are the falconers' [horses].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The falcons which they carry are free and do not stiffen themselves; yet in the view of the Rabbis, who make an exception only in respect of a human being, one would be culpable carrying out a falcon. Hence R. Johanan specified R. Nathan. ');">¹⁰</span> R. Johanan said: Yet R. Nathan agrees in the case of a tied [living being].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether human or animal, because these certainly do not carry themselves. ');">¹¹</span> R. Adda b. Mattenah said to Abaye: But these Persians are like bound [men],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: they ride swathed in their garments and could not walk if they wished to. ');">¹²</span>

את המת במטה חייב וכן כזית מן המת וכו': אמר רבה בב"ח א"ר יוחנן וא"ר יוסף אמר רשב"ל פוטר היה ר"ש

yet R. Johanan said, Ben Bathyra and R. Nathan said the same thing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Ben Bathyra permits the sale of a horse even to a Persian, showing that even a bound person is not a burden. ');">¹³</span> There they suffer from haughtiness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their haughty bearing makes them look as if they cannot walk, but actually they are able to quite well. ');">¹⁴</span> for a certain officer with whom the king was angry ran three parasangs on foot. A CORPSE IN A BED, HE IS CULPABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Tosaf. identifies R. Judah as the authority for this ruling, he being of the opinion that there is liability for a labour not essential in itself cf. supra p. 448, n. 8.] ');">¹⁵</span> AND LIKEWISE [IF ONE CARRIES OUT] THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE OR A CORPSE, etc. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name, and R. Joseph said in the name of Resh Lakish: R. Simeon declared exempt