Shabbat 70a (ע.) — the Talmud in English

And we raised this question:

What is different in the first clause:

one who knows the essence of Shabbat—that it is an unwitting transgression with regard to Shabbat and intentional disregard with regard to the labors—who is liable to bring only one sin-offering for each Shabbat.

And what is different in the latter clause:

one who knows that it is Shabbat—that it is intentional disregard with regard to Shabbat and an unwitting transgression with regard to the labors—who is liable for each and every labor?

And we answer:

Here,

in the first clause,

he desists because of knowledge of Shabbat.

For when they inform him that today is Shabbat, he immediately recognizes his sin and desists from the labor. It follows that his unwitting transgression concerns the day of Shabbat; therefore, he brings one offering for the Shabbat.

And here,

in the latter clause,

he desists because of knowledge of the labor.

For if they tell him that today is Shabbat, he still does not desist, since he knows that today is Shabbat, until they inform him that this particular act is a prohibited labor. It follows that his unwitting transgression concerns the labors. Therefore, he brings an offering for each and every labor.

Rav Naḥman said to him:

But even in the first clause, is it knowledge of Shabbat alone that causes him to desist? After all,

does he desist from Shabbat except because of the labors,

as he knows that these labors are prohibited?

And

so too in the latter clause,

does he desist from the labors except because of Shabbat,

as he knows that today is Shabbat?

It follows that knowledge of both is what causes him to desist, both in the first clause and in the latter clause; why, then, do the first clause and the latter clause differ in their laws?!

Rather, Rav Naḥman said: For what does the Merciful One obligate one to bring an offering?

For an unwitting transgression!

Therefore,

there,

in the first clause,

there is one unwitting transgression,

namely, the unwitting transgression with regard to Shabbat. Therefore, he brings only one sin-offering for the entire Shabbat.

Here,

in the latter clause,

there are many unwitting transgressions,

one for each and every labor, since he does not know that they are prohibited. 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 this question:

The division of labors—

from where do we derive it?

From where do we know that each labor is considered a transgression in its own right, and that we do not say that all of them constitute one transgression of desecrating Shabbat, so that it is as though he committed that same transgression several times during one period of unawareness, in which case he would be liable to bring only one sin-offering?

And we answer:

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

And we expound:

The Torah increased many deaths for one act of desecration!

That is, for many labors that constitute the desecration of one Shabbat.

And we challenge this: But

this

verse

is written with regard to intentional transgression,

as it is

written,

and how do you derive from here a ruling concerning an offering for an unwitting transgression?

And we answer: This is how we derive it:

If

this verse

is not needed with regard to intentional transgression, as

with regard to intentional transgression another verse

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

apply it to an unwitting transgression. And what

does the expression “shall surely be

put to death” mean?

He shall be put to death financially!

For he will lose money by having to bring 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!

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan says:

It is

written: “You shall not kindle fire in any of your settlements on the day of Shabbat.”

What does the verse come to teach?

What does this verse come to teach us? It was already stated: “You shall not perform any labor,” and kindling is included among the labors.

Rather,

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

and said to them:

‘These are the matters

that the Lord commanded, to perform them:

‘For six days labor shall be performed.’”

And we expound:

“Matters”

means two. The letter heh of

“the matters”

adds one more. And to these one must add the number of labors derived from

“these are the matters”:

“These” has a numerical value of thirty-six—

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

One might have thought

that if he

performed

all the labors

during one period of unawareness, he would be liable to bring only one offering?

The verse therefore states: “You shall refrain from plowing and reaping.”

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

And I would still say: For plowing and reaping,

which are explicitly mentioned in the verse, he will be

liable to bring two offerings,

but

for

all of them,

for all the other labors,

is he liable to bring only one offering?

The verse therefore states: “You shall not kindle fire.”

But was not kindling already included in “You shall not perform any labor”?

It was.

Why, then, was it singled out?

Rather,

to compare all the other labors to it and tell you:

Just as kindling, which is a primary category of 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, for any labor that is a primary category of labor,

one is liable

for a sin-offering

in its own right.

For this is one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded: Whatever was included in a general statement and then singled out from the general statement in order to teach something was not singled out merely to teach about itself, but was singled out to teach about the entire general category.

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

And we answer:

Shmuel

agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says:

The verse concerning

kindling,

“You shall not kindle fire,” -

was singled out as a prohibition

from all the labors! It teaches that it does not carry stoning and karet like the other labors, but only this prohibition; and we do not know the division of labors from here.

As it was taught in a beraita: Kindling

was singled out as a prohibition; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Natan says: It was singled out for division.

The labors are distinct from one another with regard to liability for a sin-offering.

And we raise another objection:

And let him derive

for Shmuel

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

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says:

It is written: “When a person sins unwittingly ...

and performs one of these.”

And it would have sufficed for the verse to write “and performs one”; all the rest would be superfluous.

Rather, the verse comes in order to derive the following from it:

There are

times

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

he is liable to bring

a sin-offering

for all of them.

And

there are

times

when they are called “these” in the plural,

so that he is liable for each and every one.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei’s opinion?

That is, although he expounds the words “one” and “these,” the mem of “from one” and the mem of “from these” are still superfluous. Rather, this is how he expounds it:

“One”—

“from one.”

“These”—

“from these.”

Initially, we expound the verse without the mem: Sometimes he desecrates Shabbat

“one”

that is

“these,”

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

And sometimes he performs

“these,”

many labors,

“which is one,”

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

And now we expound the mem of “from one”: If the verse had written only

“one,”

I would have said that this applies specifically when he wrote

“Shimon,”

that is, the entire word he intended to write.