Shabbat 70b — the Talmud in English

But since it is written

“of one”

the verse comes to include that even if he wrote only part of the word that he intended to write—for example, if he wrote

“there” from

the word

“Shimon,” he is also liable, since “there” is also a person’s name.

But if he wrote “Naf” from “Naftali,” he is not liable, because since he did not write something possessing meaning, he did not perform a labor.

And now we expound the letter mem of “maheneh”:

“Heneh”

signifies

fathers.

But the addition of the letter mem of

“maheneh”—

comes to include

derivatives.

And we return to explain that which was stated above:

“One that is ‘these’”—

intentionality regarding Shabbat and unintentionality regarding labors,

in which case he is liable to many sin-offerings, one separate sin-offering for each labor.

“‘These’ that is one”—

unintentionality regarding Shabbat and intentionality regarding labors,

in which case he is liable only to one sin-offering for each Shabbat, since the reason for all the labors is one unintentionality, unintentionality regarding Shabbat.

And one may challenge Shmuel: Why did he not derive the division of labors from here?

And we answer:

And Shmuel,

this exposition of

“one that is ‘these,’ and ‘these’ that is one”—

does not

signify anything to him.

Since he expounds the entire verse regarding one who writes “there” from “Shimon,” and regarding derivatives.

Rava asked Rav Nahman:

One who had

both kinds of unawareness in his possession,

that he also forgot that today was Shabbat, and also did not know that the thirty-nine labors are forbidden—that is, he was unintentional both with regard to unintentionality regarding Shabbat and with regard to unintentionality regarding labors—and performed many labors during one Shabbat—

what is

the law? Is he liable for each labor, as in unintentionality regarding labors, or is he liable only for one, as in unintentionality regarding Shabbat?

He said to him,

Rav Nahman:

Behold, unawareness of Shabbat was in his possession, and he is liable only for one.

And we challenge:

On the contrary. Unawareness of labors

was

in his possession, and he

should be liable for each one and one?!

Rather, Rav Ashi said: We see: If he desisted because of Shabbat,

because when they mentioned to him that today was Shabbat, he desisted from performing labors—

behold, unawareness of Shabbat was in his possession,

for it is evident that his entire unintentionality was because of forgetting Shabbat,

and he is liable only for one.

And if he desisted because of the labor,

because they mentioned to him that these are forbidden labors, and because of this he desisted—

behold, unawareness of labors was in his possession.

For it is evident that his unintentionality was the forgetting of the labors,

and he is liable for each one and one.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Did he ever desist from

desecrating

Shabbat

except because of labors?!

For when he remembered that today was Shabbat, this in itself would not cause him to desist from the labors; rather, from the fact that they told him that today was Shabbat, he understood that they also intended to tell him that the labors are forbidden. For until then he did not know of the prohibition of the labors.

And

did he ever desist from labors

after he became aware of their prohibition—

except because of Shabbat?!

For from the fact that they mentioned to him that labors are forbidden, he understood and remembered that today was Shabbat.

It follows that he always desists because he remembers both of them together.

Rather, it makes no difference!

In either case, he is liable only for one, in accordance with Rav Nahman.

And we challenge:

We learned

in this chapter:

The principal labors are forty minus one

they.

And we considered it: Why do I need the enumeration?

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

To teach you

that if he performed all of them during one period of unawareness, he is liable for each one and one.

But if he was unintentional regarding all the labors because he thought that all of them were permitted, he does not know at all that today is “Shabbat.” For what difference is there for him between Shabbat and an ordinary day? If so, both kinds of unawareness were in his possession.

Granted, if you say: Both kinds of unawareness were in his possession—

he is liable for each one and one,

properly

he is liable for each one and one, even when he was unintentional regarding all of them.

Rather, if you say

that both kinds of unawareness is like

unawareness of Shabbat was in his possession

and

he is liable only for one.

If so,

how can one find it

that he would be liable for each one and one?

It must be only

in the case of intentionality regarding Shabbat and unintentionality regarding labors.

But here, in the Mishna, where he was unintentional regarding all the labors—in what way was he intentional regarding Shabbat? For if all the labors are permitted in his view, the day of Shabbat is not sanctified in his eyes above the other days?

This works out well if he holds like Rabbi Yohanan, who said: Since he was unintentional regarding the

punishment of

extirpation,

that he does not know of the severity of the desecration of Shabbat, whose punishment is extirpation, then

even though he was intentional regarding the negative commandment,

knowing that it is forbidden to perform a labor on it, nevertheless he is considered “unintentional” [because he does not know the severity of the punishment], and therefore he is liable to bring an offering for it—

one can find it as

“intentionality regarding Shabbat,” because

he knew Shabbat with regard to the negative commandment,

but did not know only the punishment of extirpation, and therefore he is called unintentional.

Rather, if he holds like Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

who said:

A person is not called unintentional with regard to liability for a sin-offering

until he is unintentional regarding both the negative commandment and extirpation.

It is difficult: Since he was unintentional regarding all the labors, and thought that there was neither a negative commandment nor extirpation for them—

through what did he know Shabbat?!

And if so, both kinds of unawareness were in his possession, and why is he liable for each one and one?!

And we answer:

He knew it

with regard to Shabbat

through the boundaries,

that there is a prohibition against going outside the boundary on Shabbat,

and according to Rabbi Akiva,

who holds that the prohibition of boundaries is from the Torah.

Rava said: He reaped and ground an olive-sized measure [“

An olive-sized measure” is the measure for which one is liable in all the Shabbat labors performed with food]

with unintentionality regarding Shabbat and intentionality regarding labors,

and he is liable only for one sin-offering for both of them.

And it became known to him that today was Shabbat. And afterwards the prohibition of labors became hidden from him, and therefore:

He then again reaped and ground an olive-sized measure with intentionality regarding Shabbat and unintentionality regarding labors,

for although in the interim he became aware that today was Shabbat, he forgot that these labors are forbidden [and nevertheless everything is considered one period of unawareness, since he did not have “awareness of the sin” in the middle, for immediately when he became aware that today was Shabbat, he forgot the prohibition of the labors].

And for the second reaping and grinding, he would apparently be destined to become liable to two sin-offerings when it became known to him that he had sinned, because they are two unintentionalities regarding two separate labors.

And it became known to him regarding the reaping and grinding

the first

of unintentionality regarding Shabbat and intentionality regarding labors,

and he set aside one sin-offering for both of them, since he is liable for only one sin-offering for unintentionality regarding Shabbat. And the name of the sin-offering is “a sin-offering for unintentionality regarding Shabbat.”

And

after he set aside the sin-offering for unintentionality regarding Shabbat,

he again became aware regarding the reaping and grinding

the second

of intentionality regarding Shabbat and unintentionality regarding labors—

he does not need to bring an additional sin-offering for the second reaping and grinding.