Shabbat 154a — the Talmud in English

Rav Zevid taught

this statement

as follows: Rami bar Hama said: One who drives an animal after himself on Shabbat, unintentionally is not liable for a sin-offering.

But

intentionally he is liable to stoning,

like all the labors of Shabbat.

Rava objected:

and it was taught in a beraita:

One who desecrates Shabbat through a matter for whose unintentional violation one is liable to a sin-offering, for its intentional violation one is liable to stoning.

It follows,

that

a matter for which

one is not liable to a sin-offering for its unintentional violation, one is not liable to stoning for its intentional violation.

If so, “driving an animal,” for which there is no sin-offering for its unintentional violation, likewise should not entail liability to stoning for its intentional violation. And this is difficult for Rami bar Hama.

And we answer: It is not a precise inference. For

does it explicitly teach

explicitly

“that for a matter for which one is not liable

for its unintentional violation to a sin-offering, one is not liable for its intentional violation to stoning”?

And perhaps

this is what it says:

Every

matter for whose unintentional violation one is liable to a sin-offering,

always

entails liability to stoning for its intentional violation.

But we can still say that

there is a matter that

even though

one is not liable to a sin-offering for its unintentional violation,

nevertheless

one is liable to stoning for its intentional violation.

And what is it? —

driving an animal.

And there are among them those for whose intentional violation there is no karet, such as boundaries according to Rabbi Akiva, and kindling according to Rabbi Yosei.

Rava, the brother of Rav Mari bar Rahel, would teach this statement in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, to exempt

one who drives an animal completely. [

And in the books before us it is versioned:

and some say:

Rava,

the father of Rav Mari bar Rahel

was.

And he says:

According to the latter formulation,

which says that he was the father of Rav Mari bar Rahel,

there is a difficulty from this,

which is stated in Yevamot,

that Rav [

a ]

declared Rav Mari bar Rahel fit and appointed him in his jurisdiction of Babylonia [

he appointed him to be an officer in Babylonia ] . And although his father was a convert, and we hold that “all appointments that you appoint may only be from among your brothers,” since his mother was from Israel, we read “from among your brothers” with regard to him. It follows that his father was a convert. And how did you say that he was Rava’s son?

And we answer:

Perhaps there were two Rav Mari bar Rahels.

And Rashi and Tosafot did not have this version.]

That

Rabbi Yohanan said: One who drives his animal after himself on Shabbat is exempt from anything. Unintentionally, he is not liable to a sin-offering, because the entire Torah was compared to idolatry.

Just as there, we require that he perform an action with his own body, so too with all those liable for sin-offerings. But one who drives an animal does not perform an action with his own body, but rather through his animal.

And intentionally too, he is not liable

to stoning.

For

this

we learned: One who desecrates Shabbat through a matter for whose unintentional violation one is liable to a sin-offering, for its intentional violation one is liable to stoning.

It follows,

that

a matter for which

one is not liable to a sin-offering for its unintentional violation, one is not liable to stoning for its intentional violation.

And since there is no sin-offering for driving an animal, there is likewise no stoning for it.

And

for

lashes for

a lav, he is likewise not liable

as with all prohibitions in the Torah. Because

it is

the lav of driving an animal,

a lav that was given as a warning for a court-imposed death penalty.

And although with driving an animal itself there is no court-imposed death penalty, nevertheless, the lav of “You shall not perform any labor,” from which we derive driving an animal, comes to warn also concerning the other labors of Shabbat, for which there is a death penalty.

And every lav that was given as a warning for a court-imposed death penalty, one does not receive lashes for it.

For its principal warning comes to impose a death penalty, and not lashes.