Shabbat 69a (סט.) — the Talmud in English

And it is written at the beginning of the passage:

“And when you unwittingly fail to perform all these mitzvot,”

that is, idolatry, which is equivalent to all the mitzvot.

And it is written: “But the person who acts high-handedly ...

that person shall be cut off from among his people.”

And from the verse “There shall be one Torah for you,” we derive:

They were all equated:

all the sin-offerings brought for unwitting violations of all the prohibitions of the Torah

with idolatry—

just as there,

in the case of idolatry, one is liable to bring an offering only for

an act whose intentional violation incurs karet.

As it is written immediately afterward: “The person who acts ... and shall be cut off” [excluding acts such as embracing and kissing an idol, which do not incur karet],

and whose unwitting violation incurs a sin-offering.

That is, an unwitting violation incurs a sin-offering only for an act whose intentional violation incurs karet.

Likewise, every act whose intentional violation incurs karet

has

an unwitting violation that incurs a sin-offering.

And therefore an unwitting violation was equated with an intentional violation, in order to derive the law of an unwitting violation throughout the Torah from the intentional violation of idolatry.

We inquire:

But as for Munbaz,

who says that even if he had knowledge at the time of the act, he is considered an unwitting violator with regard to a sin-offering—

in what sense is this unwitting?

He is surely a completely intentional violator, whereas with regard to a sin-offering it is written “unwittingly”!

And we answer:

For example, he was unaware of the offering.

He knows that the act is prohibited and that one who performs it intentionally is liable to karet, but he does not know that performing it unwittingly also entails the punishment of a sin-offering.

And the Rabbis

hold that

“unawareness of the offering” is not considered unawareness,

unless he was unaware of the prohibition itself.

We inquire:

And according to the Rabbis,

in what sense is this unwitting?

To what extent must he be unaware?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Once he was unaware of the karet,

that is, he did not know that karet was incurred,

even though he intentionally violated the prohibition,

that is, he knew that the act was prohibited by a negative commandment, he is considered an unwitting violator. In that case, the offering comes for his unawareness of the punishment of karet for the violation. And this is as we said above, that “There shall be one Torah for you for the one who acts unwittingly” is juxtaposed with “The person who acts ... and shall be cut off.”

And Reish Lakish said: Until he is unaware of both the prohibition and the karet,

that is, he is unaware of both of them.

Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish?

For Rabbi Yohanan’s reasoning is more compelling, as we said: Even when he knows of the negative commandment, he is still an unwitting violator because he is unaware of the severity of the punishment. [Tosafot].

The verse says

with regard to a sin-offering:

“That he shall not do

(unwittingly)

and he is guilty.”

This implies that he must be unaware of both the negative commandment and the karet associated with it, since “that he shall not do” refers to a negative commandment, and the verse says of it: “unwittingly.”

We inquire:

And Rabbi Yohanan—what does he do with this verse of Rabbi

Shimon ben Lakish, which says, “That he shall not do—unwittingly”?

What does he derive from it?

And we answer:

He requires it for that which was taught in a beraita:

It is stated: “And if a single person sins unwittingly

from among the people of the land.”

The exclusionary phrase “from among the people of the land” implies that the verse comes to teach that not every member of the people of the land is liable to bring a sin-offering. It teaches you:

excluding an apostate,

from whom an offering for his sin is not accepted.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

From here you learn: It is stated,

“That he shall not do

(unwittingly) and he is guilty,

or his sin is made known to him that he sinned, and he shall bring his guilt-offering [a sin-offering].” And we derive:

A person

who would repent upon learning,

for had he known, he would have repented of his sin, is the one who

brings an offering for his unwitting violation.

One who would not repent upon learning—

does not bring an offering for his unwitting violation.

This is the meaning of the verse: “That he shall not do [he would not have done it had he known of the prohibition, but he did it] unwittingly [and sinned only because he lacked this knowledge] and he is guilty”—he is the one who brings a sin-offering [Rashi, Chullin 5b]. This excludes an apostate, who would not repent upon learning and therefore does not bring an offering.

We learned

in our chapter:

The primary labors

of Shabbat

are forty less one

in number.

And we inquire: Why do I need the enumeration?

Why must the tanna state that the number of primary labors is forty less one, since he lists all of them and we know their number automatically?

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

This teaches you

that if he performed

the labors

all in one lapse of awareness, and

he did not become aware in the interim that he had sinned, he

is liable

for a sin-offering

for each and every one

of the primary labors. The enumeration is merely a sign, to indicate how many sin-offerings one could potentially be liable to bring for a single Shabbat.

We inquire:

How can you find

that he is liable for each and every labor? Necessarily,

he intentionally knew of Shabbat but was unaware of the labors.

He knew that it was Shabbat, but did not know that these labors were prohibited on Shabbat.

For if he was unaware of Shabbat but intentionally knew of the labors—that is, he forgot that it was Shabbat but knew that the labors were prohibited—we already learned in the Mishna at the beginning of our chapter that he is liable to bring only one sin-offering for all the labors he performed during one Shabbat.

Now this presents a difficulty:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan, who says: Once he is unaware of karet, even though he intentionally violates the negative commandment,

he is considered unwitting; this explains how it

can be found

that he is unaware with regard to all the labors, not knowing that they are prohibited, while nevertheless knowing that it is Shabbat.

His knowledge is expressed in the following manner:

For example, he knew of Shabbat with regard to a negative commandment.

He knew that there was a negative commandment concerning all or some of the labors, but believed that they did not entail karet. In this respect he is considered “unwitting,” and is liable to bring a sin-offering.

Thus, with regard to the labors he is unwitting, while with regard to Shabbat he is intentional.

But according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says

that one is not liable to bring a sin-offering

until he is unaware of both the negative commandment and karet,

there is a difficulty: He

knew of Shabbat—

with regard to what?!

Since he believes that all the labors are permitted, entailing neither a negative commandment nor karet, there is no distinction for him between Shabbat and an ordinary day. His status should therefore be like that of one who forgot that it was Shabbat, who is liable to only one sin-offering for all the labors of Shabbat. How, then, could he be liable for thirty-nine sin-offerings?

And we answer:

He knew

of Shabbat

with regard to the Shabbat limits,

that there is a prohibition against exceeding the Shabbat limits.

And this is according to Rabbi Akiva,

who says that the prohibition against exceeding the Shabbat limits is by Torah law.

In any event, this is not included among the labors. Consequently, it is possible for him to be unaware of all the labors [and be liable for thirty-nine sin-offerings], while intentionally violating Shabbat, since he knows that it is Shabbat and that exceeding the Shabbat limits is prohibited.

We inquire:

Who is the tanna of that which the Sages taught in a beraita:

a.

One who was unaware of both

Shabbat and the labors—

this is the unwitting violator mentioned in the Torah!

That is, this person is certainly called an unwitting violator.

b.

One who intentionally knew of both—

this is the intentional violator mentioned in the Torah!

c.

One who was unaware of Shabbat but intentionally knew of the labors, or who was unaware of the labors but intentionally knew of Shabbat,

d.

Or one who said: I know that this labor is prohibited, but I do not know

whether

one is liable to bring an offering for it or not—

all these are included among unwitting violations, and

he is liable

to bring a sin-offering.

In accordance with whom

is this?

In accordance with Munbaz!

For according to the Rabbis, unawareness consisting solely of ignorance of the offering would not be considered an unwitting violation.

Abaye said: Everyone agrees with regard to an oath of utterance

[for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering, such as one who swore that he would eat or would not eat and violated his oath unwittingly]

that one is not liable to bring an offering until he is unaware of the negative commandment involved,

that is, at the time he eats he has forgotten his oath, and is therefore unaware of the negative commandment.

We inquire:

“Everyone agrees”—

who

is the one who agrees?

Necessarily,

it is Rabbi Yohanan

who agrees. For although with regard to Shabbat he holds, according to the Rabbis, that unawareness of karet is considered an unwitting violation, nevertheless, with regard to an oath, which does not involve karet, it is necessarily required that he be unaware of the negative commandment.

Nor can one say that Munbaz agrees with regard to an oath that ignorance of the punishment of the offering is not considered unawareness, for how does it differ from Shabbat?

And we object:

It is obvious

that Rabbi Yohanan agrees!?

For

when Rabbi Yohanan says

that an offering can be required even in a case of intentional violation, it is only

where karet is involved.

Because he is unaware of the punishment of karet, he is considered an unwitting violator.

But where karet is not involved, he did not say

that an offering can be required even for an intentional violation of the prohibition. If so, necessarily his unawareness concerns the negative commandment, since according to the Rabbis unawareness of the offering is nowhere considered unawareness.

And we answer:

It might have entered your mind to say

that Rabbi Yohanan would also say with regard to an oath that although he intentionally violated the negative commandment, he is considered an unwitting violator. And if you ask: In what sense, then, is he unwitting? I would answer that one might say the opposite: With regard to an oath, the Rabbis agree with Munbaz that unawareness of the offering is considered unawareness.

Since it is an exceptional law

that one is liable to bring a sin-offering for an oath of utterance,

as nowhere throughout the Torah do we find

a violation of

a negative commandment for which one brings an offering,

but only for a violation whose intentional punishment is karet.

And

if

here,

with regard to an oath,

one brings

a sin-offering for a mere violation of a negative commandment,

therefore, I might have said

that

since the Torah introduced the law that even if he

was unaware of

the punishment of the offering [although he knew of the negative-commandment violation], he is considered unwitting in this case, therefore

he is also liable to bring an offering.