Shabbat 203:1

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הזורק ונזכר מאחר שיצתה מידו קלטה אחר קלטה כלב או שנשרפה פטור זרק לעשות חבורה בין באדם ובין בבהמה ונזכר עד שלא נעשית חבורה פטור זה הכלל כל חייבי חטאות אינן חייבין עד שתהא תחלתן וסופן שגגה תחלתן שגגה וסופן זדון תחילתן זדון וסופן שגגה פטורין עד שתהא תחילתן וסופן שגגה:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. <small>IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] AND RECALLS [THAT IT IS THE SABBATH] AFTER IT LEAVES HIS HAND, AND ANOTHER CATCHES IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it falls to the ground. ');">¹</span></small>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> הא נחה חייב והלא נזכר ותנן כל חייבי חטאות אינן חייבין עד שתהא תחלתן וסופן שגגה אמר רב כהנא סיפא אתאן ללכתא ומתנא

OR A DOG CATCHES IT. OR IT IS BURNT, HE IS NOT LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exact meaning is discussed infra. ');">²</span>

לכתא ומתנא אוגדו בידו הוא כגון שנתכוין לעשות חבורה הא נמי תנינא הזורק לעשות חבורה בין באדם בין בבהמה ונזכר עד שלא נעשית חבורה פטור אלא אמר רבא במעביר

IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] IN ORDER TO INFLICT A WOUND. WHETHER IN MAN OR IN BEAST, AND HE RECALLS [THAT IT IS THE SABBATH] BEFORE THE WOUND IS INFLICTED. HE IS NOT LIABLE THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS ARE LIABLE ONLY IF THE BEGINNING AND THE END [OF THE FORBIDDEN ACTION] ARE UNWITTING. IF THEIR BEGINNING IS UNWITTING WHILE THEIR END IS WILFUL, IF THEIR BEGINNING IS WILFUL WHILE THEIR END IS UNWITTING. THEY ARE NOT LIABLE, UNLESS THEIR BEGINNING AND END ARE UNWITTING.</small>

והא זה הכלל דקתני אזריקה קתני אלא אמר רבא תרתי קתני הזורק ונזכר מאחר שיצתה מידו אי נמי לא נזכר וקלטה אחר או קלטה כלב או שנשרפה פטור

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Hence if it alighted, he is liable:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This assumes that the Mishnah means, AND RECALLS, and, ANOTHER CATCHES, etc. ');">³</span>

רב אשי אמר חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני הזורק ונזכר מאחר שיצתה מידו קלטה אחר או קלטה כלב או שנשרפה פטור הא נחה חייב בד"א שחזר ושכח אבל לא חזר ושכח פטור שכל חייבי חטאות אינן חייבין עד שתהא תחלתן וסופן שגגה:

But surely he did not remind himself, and we learnt, <small>ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS ARE LIABLE ONLY IF THE BEGINNING AND THE END [OF THE FORBIDDEN ACTION] ARE UNWITTING? </small>Said R. Kahana: The last clause is applicable to a bolt and a cord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tied together. I.e., the second clause can refer only to one who throws a bolt whilst retaining the cord in his hand. If he recollects before it reaches the ground, he can pull it back; hence if he does not pull it back the end (sc. its alighting) is deliberate. But if the article has left his hand entirely and he cannot prevent its falling, the end too is regarded as unwitting. whether he recollects or not. ');">⁴</span>

זה הכלל כל חייבי חטאות כו': איתמר שתי אמות בשוגג שתי אמות במזיד שתי אמות בשוגג

[You say.] 'A bolt and a cord'! But is not its tie in his hand?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is not throwing at all. ');">⁵</span>

רבה אמר פטור רבא אמר חייב רבה אמר פטור אפילו לרבן גמליאל דאמר אין ידיעה לחצי שיעור התם הוא דכי קא גמר שיעורא בשוגג קא גמר אבל הכא דבמזיד לא

— It means, e.g., that he intended to inflict a wound. But this too we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi reads: But we learnt this explicitly why then intimate it in the general principle? ');">⁶</span>

ובמאי אי בזורק שוגג הוא אלא במעביר

<small>IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] IN ORDER TO INFLICT A WOUND, WHETHER IN MAN OR IN BEAST, AND HE RECALLS [THAT IT IS THE SABBATH] BEFORE THE WOUND IS INFLICTED, HE IS NOT LIABLE?</small> — Rather said Raba: It refers to one who carries.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the last clause: if he recollects, he can stop before he has traversed four cubits. ');">⁷</span>

רבה אמר חייב ואפילו לרבנן דאמרי יש ידיעה לחצי שיעור התם הוא דבידו אבל הכא דאין בידו לא ובמאי אי במעביר הרי בידו ואלא בזורק

But the statement, <small>THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE,</small> is stated with reference to throwing? Rather said Raba: Two [contingencies] are taught. [Thus:] <small>IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] AND RECALLS</small> [that it is the Sabbath] after it leaves his hand, or even if he does not recall [it], but <small>ANOTHER CATCHES IT, OR A DOG CATCHES IT, OR IT IS BURNT, HE IS NOT LIABLE'</small> — R. Ashi said: It [the Mishnah] is defective, and teaches this: <small>'IF ONE THROWS [AN ARTICLE] AND RECALLS [THAT IT IS THE SABBATH] AFTER IT LEAVES HIS HAND, AND ANOTHER CATCHES IT, OR A DOG CATCHES IT, OR IT IS BURNT, HE IS NOT LIABLE.</small><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is all one, not as Raba interprets it. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבה זרק ונחה בפי הכלב או בפי הכבשן חייב והאנן תנן קלטה אחר או קלטה הכלב או שנשרפה פטור התם דלא מכוין הכא דקא מכוין

But if it alights, he is liable. That, however, is said only if he forgot again;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it alighted. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רב ביבי בר אביי אף אנן נמי תנינא יש אוכל אכילה אחת וחייב עליה ד' חטאות ואשם אחד הטמא שאכל חלב והוא נותר מן המוקדשין ביוה"כ

but if he did not forget again, he is not liable, because <small>ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS ARE LIABLE ONLY IF THE BEGINNING AND THE END [OF THE FORBIDDEN ACTION] ARE UNWITTING'.</small>

רבי מאיר אומר אף אם היתה שבת והוציאו [בפיו] חייב אמרו לו אינו מן השם ואמאי הא אין דרך הוצאה בכך אלא כיון דקא מיכוין מחשבתו משויא ליה מקום הכא נמי כיון דקא מיכוין מחשבתו משויא ליה מקום:

<small>THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: ALL WHO ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS</small>. etc. It was stated: [If the object travels] two cubits unwittingly, two cubits deliberately, and two cubits unwittingly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thrower or carrier (v. infra to which this actually refers) was unaware of the Sabbath (or that throwing is prohibited) during the first two cubits of its passage, recollected for the next two, and forgot again for the last two. — Of course, this is a most unlikely hypothesis almost impossible in fact. Many similar unlikely contingencies are discussed in the Talmud, and their purpose is to establish the principles by which they are governed and which may then be applied to normal possibilities. ');">¹⁰</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הזורק</strong></big><br><br>

— Rabbah ruled, He [the thrower] is not liable; Raba said: He is liable. 'Rabbah ruled, He is not liable': even according to R. Gamaliel. who maintained. Knowledge in respect of half the standard is of no consequence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 341. n. 8. Here too' two cubits is half the standard. ');">¹¹</span> that is [only] there, because when he completes the standard, he completes it unwittingly, but here that [he completes it] wilfully, it is not so. But to what [does this refer]? If to one who throws, [surely] he is an unwitting offender?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he recollects, since it has left his hand and he cannot bring it back. ');">¹²</span> — Rather it must refer to one who carries. 'Raba said, He is liable': even according to the Rabbis, who maintained, Knowledge in respect of half the standard is of consequence: that is [only] there, because it is in his power,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not to complete the action. ');">¹³</span> but here that it is not in his power, it is not so. But to what [does this refer]? If to one who carries, surely it is in his power? Rather it must refer to one who throws.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus there is no controversy, each referring to a different case. ');">¹⁴</span> Raba said: If one throws [an article] and it falls into the mouth of a dog or a furnace, he is culpable. But we learnt, <small>AND ANOTHER CATCHES IT, OR A DOG CATCHES IT, OR IT IS BURNT, HE IS NOT LIABLE?</small> — There that is not his intention; here this is his intention. R. Bibi b. Abaye said, We too have learnt [thus]: A person may eat once, and be liable to four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering on account thereof, [viz.:] All unclean person who eats heleb, which is nothar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For heleb and nothar v, Glos. ');">¹⁵</span> of sacred food [sacrifices] on the Day of Atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is liable to separate sin-offering because he has violated the interdicts of heleb, nothar, eating on the Day of Atonement, and the prohibition against an unclean person's consumption of sacred food. Again. since the heleb of a sacrifice belongs to the altar, he is liable to a guilt-offering for trespass. ');">¹⁶</span> R. Meir said: If in addition it is the Sabbath, and he carries it out in his mouth, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of carrying. ');">¹⁷</span> Said they to him, That does not fall under this designation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. eating, for this liability is on account of carrying, not of eating; v. Ker. 13b. ');">¹⁸</span> Yet why so? Surely this is not the normal way of carrying out?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One is not liable for performing an action in an abnormal manner. ');">¹⁹</span> But [what you must say is.] since he intends it this, his design renders it [his mouth) the [right] place;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For holding the food in to carry it out. R. Han.: his design renders his mouth the equivalent of a place four handbreadths square, whence and whither removal and depositing can take place. ');">²⁰</span> so here too, since he intends [it this].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that the dog should catch it, etc. ');">²¹</span> his design renders it [the mouth of the dog or of the furnace] a place [for depositing]