Shabbat 70a — the Talmud in English

And we raised it concerning this:

What is different in the first clause

—one who knows the essence of Shabbat, meaning unawareness of Shabbat and deliberate awareness of the labors, who is liable for only one sin-offering for each Shabbat.

And what is different in the latter clause

—one who knows that it is Shabbat, meaning deliberate awareness of Shabbat and unawareness of the labors, who is liable for each and every labor?

And we answer:

Rav Safra said: Here

—in the first clause—

he withdraws because of awareness of Shabbat.

For when they inform him that today is Shabbat, he immediately recognizes his sin and withdraws from the labor. It follows that his unawareness is in relation to the day of Shabbat; therefore, he brings one offering for the Shabbat.

And here

—in the latter clause—

he withdraws because of awareness of a labor.

For if they tell him that today is Shabbat, he still does not withdraw, since he knows that today is Shabbat, until they inform him that this is a forbidden labor. It follows that his unawareness is concerning the labors. Therefore, he brings an offering for each and every labor.

Rav Nahman said to him

: But also in the first clause, is it awareness of Shabbat alone that causes him to withdraw? For

does he withdraw from Shabbat except because of the labors,

since he knows that these labors are forbidden?

And

so too in the latter clause,

does he withdraw from the labors except because of Shabbat,

since he knows that today is Shabbat?

It follows that awareness of both of them is what causes him to withdraw, both in the first clause and in the latter clause; and why did the first clause and the latter clause differ in their laws?!

Rather, Rav Nahman said: The offering that the Merciful One obligated—why?

For unawareness!

Therefore,

there

—in the first clause—there is

one unawareness,

namely, unawareness of Shabbat. And therefore he brings only one sin-offering for the entire Shabbat.

Here,

in the latter clause,

there are many unawarenesses,

for each and every labor, since he does not know that they are forbidden. Therefore, he brings a sin-offering for each one of them.

We learned in the Mishna:

He is liable for each and every labor.

And we raised it concerning this:

The division of labors—

from where do we know it?

From where do we know that each labor is considered a transgression in its own right, and we do not say that all of them are one transgression of profaning Shabbat, and it is as though he committed that same transgression several times in one period of unawareness, so that he is liable for only one sin-offering?

And we answer:

Shmuel said: The verse states, “Those who profane it shall surely be put to death.”

And we expound:

The Torah multiplied many deaths for one profanation!

That is to say, for many labors that are the profanation of one Shabbat.

And we challenge: But

this

verse

in a deliberate act

is

written,

and how do you derive from here concerning an offering for an unintentional act?

And we answer: This is how we derive it:

If

this verse

is not applicable to a deliberate act, for

concerning a deliberate act another verse

is written: “Whoever performs labor in it shall be put to death,” —

apply it to an unintentional act. And what is “

death

shall surely be put to death”?

He shall be put to death through money!

For he will lose money through this, by bringing many offerings.

And we raised a question to Shmuel:

And let him derive

for Shmuel

the division of labors from the source from which Rabbi Natan derives it?

For it was taught: Rabbi Natan says:

It is written,

“You shall not kindle fire in all your settlements on the day of Shabbat,”

what does it come to teach?

What does this verse come to teach us? Is it not already stated, “You shall perform no labor,” and kindling is included within labor?

Rather,

since it is stated, “And Moses gathered the entire assembly of the Children of Israel

and said to them:

These are the words

that the Lord commanded, to perform them:

‘For six days labor shall be performed,’”

and we expound:

“Words”

implies two. The letter he of

“the words”

adds one more. And to them one must add the number of labors learned from

“these are the words”;

“these” has the numerical value of thirty-six—

these are the thirty-nine labors that were said to Moses at Sinai.

It might have been thought:

If he

performed

all the labors

in one period of unawareness, is he liable for only one?

The verse therefore says, “From plowing and harvesting you shall desist.”

The verse singled out plowing and harvesting from among the labors in order to divide them into two, so that he is liable for a sin-offering for each labor in its own right.

And I would still say: For plowing and for harvesting

that are explicitly mentioned in the verse, he will be

liable for two;

but

for

all of them,

for all the other labors,

is he liable for only one?

The verse therefore says, “You shall not kindle fire.”

But was not kindling included in “You shall perform no labor”?

It was.

And why did it go out?

Rather,

to compare to it and tell you:

Just as kindling, which is a primary labor, and for which one is liable

a sin-offering

in its own right,

even if he performed it together with other labors, since it was stated separately as a prohibition,

so too everything that is a primary labor—

one is liable for it

a sin-offering

in its own right.

For this is one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded: anything that was included in a general category and went out from the general category in order to teach, did not go out only to teach about itself, but rather went out to teach about the entire general category.

And why did Shmuel not derive the division of labors from here?

And we answer:

Shmuel—

he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, who said:

The verse concerning

kindling, “

you shall not kindle”—

went out as a prohibition

from all the labors! To tell you that it does not carry stoning and excision like the other labors, but only this prohibition; and we do not know the division of labors from here.

For it was taught: Kindling—

went out as a prohibition; these are the words of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Natan says: It went out for division.

For the labors are divided from one another with regard to the sin-offering.

And we further challenge:

And let him derive

for Shmuel

the division of labors from the source from which Rabbi Yosei derives it?

For it was taught: Rabbi Yosei says:

It is written, “When a person sins unintentionally …

and performs one of them.”

And it would have been possible to write “and performs one,” while the rest would be superfluous.

Rather, the verse comes in order that we expound from it:

There are

times

when all of a person’s acts of transgression are considered “one.” That is,

they are liable

a sin-offering

for all of them.

And

there are

times

when they are called “them” in the plural,

when they are liable for each and every one.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei?

That is, indeed he expounds the words “one” and “them,” but the mem of “from one” and the mem of “from them” are still superfluous. Rather, this is how he expounds:

“One”—

“from one.”

“Them”—

“from them.”

And first we expound without the mem: Sometimes he profanes Shabbat

one—

which is

them,

for which he is liable for many sin-offerings, for each and every labor.

And sometimes he performed

them,

many labors,

which are one,

for which he is liable for only one sin-offering.

And now we expound the mem of “from one”: If it had been written

“one,”

I would say that this applies specifically if he wrote

“Shimon,”

that is, the entire word that he intended to write.