Shabbat 68b — the Talmud in English

And we infer:

But

if

he did not forget

the essence of Shabbat, but rather forgot that today was Shabbat,

what—

is he liable for each and every labor?

For if this is not said, but rather it is said that even when he did not forget the essence of Shabbat, his law is like that of one who forgot, and he is liable only one sin-offering for each and every Shabbat, the Mishna should also have written this case in the middle clause: whether he forgot or did not forget the essence of Shabbat, he is liable for each and every Shabbat.

And let us challenge this: If so,

rather than teaching

in the final clause:

One who knows that it is Shabbat and performed many labors on many Shabbatot—

is liable for each and every labor.

For it would be preferable that

it teach

in it:

One who knows the essence of Shabbat,

and forgot that today was Shabbat—is liable for each and every labor, even though all the labors are one error. And I know that

this is all the more so,

one who knows that today is Shabbat and erred regarding the prohibition of the labors, that he is liable for each and every labor, for each labor is a different error?! And we answer:

Rather,

the opening

of the Mishna

deals

with one who recognized

the mitzva of Shabbat

and ultimately forgot

it.

And the statement of Rav and Shmuel as well—

is like one who recognized it and ultimately forgot,

as he explains:

And this is what was stated:

Rav and Shmuel, both say: Even a child who was captured among the gentiles, and a convert who converted among the gentiles,

who never heard of the mitzva of Shabbat—

is like one who recognized it and ultimately forgot, and is liable

one sin-offering.

And Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, both say: Only

if at first he

recognized it and ultimately forgot

is he liable for a sin-offering.

But a child who was captured among the gentiles and a convert who converted among the gentiles is exempt

entirely from a sin-offering, for this is not an error but rather he is coerced. For anyone who says regarding a prohibition that it is permitted is coerced, and the Merciful One exempted him.

He raised an objection:

It was taught in a beraita:

They stated a major principle regarding Shabbat: Anyone who forgets the essence of Shabbat and performs many labors on many Shabbatot—

is liable only one sin-offering.

How so?

A child who was captured among the gentiles, and a convert who converted among the gentiles, and performed many labors on many Shabbatot—

is liable only one sin-offering.

And likewise, he is not liable

for

many acts of eating

of blood,

which he ate all his life, but one sin-offering

only.

And

likewise,

for the forbidden fat

which he ate all his life, he brings one sin-offering

only.

And for idolatry

which he worshiped all his life, one sin-offering

only.

And likewise for every prohibition in the Torah for which there is a sin-offering, although he transgressed many times, he brings only one sin-offering.

And Munbaz exempts

the child who was captured entirely from a sin-offering.

And this is how Munbaz would reason before Rabbi Akiva: Since one who acts deliberately is called a sinner [as it is written regarding the oath of testimony, “And if a person sins,” and it deals even with one who acts deliberately].

as it is written with regard to the oath of testimony, “And if a person sin,” and the verse is speaking even of one who acts intentionally,

And one who acts unintentionally is called a sinner,

we learn by a binyan av:

Just as one who acts deliberately

his liability is when

he had awareness

that the matter was forbidden—

so too one who acts unintentionally

is liable specifically in such a case

that he had awareness

in the past that it was forbidden, and afterward forgot. Only in this way is he called one who acts unintentionally, and is liable for a sin-offering. This excludes a child who was captured, who never knew the prohibition.

Rabbi Akiva said to him

to Munbaz:

I am adding to your words!

That is, if you are coming to compare one who acts unintentionally to one who acts deliberately, you should compare them completely as well. But this is not possible.

For is it possible to say:

If so, just as one who acts deliberately, whose awareness was at the time of the act—

so too one who acts unintentionally

is even when

he had awareness at the time of the act

of the transgression, in which case he too would be liable for a sin-offering?!

He said to him

Munbaz:

Yes! And all the more so you have added

to my words. For indeed, regarding such an unintentional act as well I say that he is liable for a sin-offering.

He said to him

Rabbi Akiva:

According to your words,

that even when he knows at the time of the act he is one who acts unintentionally—

this is not called one who acts unintentionally, but one who acts deliberately!

And below he explains their dispute.

And we conclude regarding the challenge:

In any event it teaches: How so?

A child

who was captured is liable for a sin-offering.

Granted, according to Rav and Shmuel it is satisfactory,

for they make even a child who was captured liable for a sin-offering. [And the reason the beraita mentioned a child who was captured is to inform us of the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Munbaz. But the same is true of one who recognized it and ultimately forgot, who is liable for only one sin-offering, as in the Mishna.]

But according to Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

who exempt a child who was captured from a sin-offering—

is this not difficult?!

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish can say to you:

But

is there not Munbaz, who exempts

a child who was captured?

We, who say

that he is exempt—

are like Munbaz!

And we inquire:

What is Munbaz’s reason?

For it is impossible to learn one who acts unintentionally from one who acts deliberately by a binyan av, since they are opposites: one who acts deliberately is exempt from a sin-offering, whereas one who acts unintentionally is liable for a sin-offering.

And we answer: Munbaz learns from that

which is written

in the passage concerning the sin-offering for idolatry:

“One Torah shall there be for you for one who acts unintentionally.” And adjacent to it is, “And the person who acts with a high hand,”

that is, one who acts deliberately.

He compared one who acts unintentionally to one who acts deliberately [for necessarily, Scripture compared them, although they are not similar]:

and necessarily, the verse juxtaposed them even though they are not similar:

Just as one who acts deliberately, who had awareness—

so too one who acts unintentionally, who had awareness.

And we inquire:

And the Rabbis [that is, Rabbi Akiva, who disagrees with Munbaz]—

mean—that is, Rabbi Akiva, who disagrees with Munbaz—by

what do they make of this “one Torah”?

Regarding what were one who acts unintentionally and one who acts deliberately compared?

And we answer:

They require it for that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi calls his son.

It is written in the passage concerning the sin-offering for idolatry:

“One Torah shall there be for you for one who acts unintentionally.”