Shabbat 71a — the Talmud in English

The reason is that the sin-offering designated as a “sin-offering for an unwitting transgression of Shabbat,” to atone for the first

harvesting

performed when he was unaware that it was Shabbat, has the power to

draw along

and atone also for the second

harvesting,

which was performed when he was unaware that harvesting is a prohibited labor, so that it too is atoned for by that same sin-offering.

Since both the first and second harvesting were performed during “one lapse of awareness,” as he did not realize that he had sinned until after the second harvesting [although in the meantime he had realized that it was Shabbat], the sin-offering brought for the first harvesting atones also for all the harvestings performed during that same lapse of awareness [for one who performs the same transgression twice during one lapse of awareness atones through one sin-offering].

And

likewise, that same sin-offering for an unwitting transgression of Shabbat, which was also designated to atone for the first

grinding,

[since the sin-offering for an unwitting transgression of Shabbat was designated for the first grinding just as it was for the first harvesting],

draws along

and atones also for the second

grinding,

which was performed during the same lapse of awareness as the first grinding.

But

if

he became aware

first

of

the

harvesting

second,

when he had intentionally disregarded Shabbat but was unaware of the prohibited labors, and he designated a sin-offering for that harvesting, this sin-offering designated for the second harvesting cannot atone for the second grinding, since the second harvesting and the second grinding were performed when he was unaware of the prohibited labors. Therefore, he is liable to bring a separate sin-offering for each prohibited labor.

However, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering for the first harvesting and the first grinding, because the

second

harvesting

that was second

draws along

the

first harvesting,

as it was performed during the same lapse of awareness, and atones for it.

And

the first harvesting, which is atoned for through this sin-offering, draws along with it the

grinding

first

performed with it,

so that it too is atoned for together with it.

For although the principal purpose of the offering was not the first harvesting, but rather it was designated for the second harvesting, nevertheless, since the first harvesting was atoned for, the grinding performed with it was also atoned for. This is because from the outset both depended on one offering. Both were performed during an unwitting transgression of Shabbat, and an offering that atones for the unwitting transgression of Shabbat must necessarily atone for both of them, because one cannot be atoned for without the other.

And

if the

grinding

second

that

was

opposite it

the first grinding—

stands in its own place,

meaning that he is liable to bring a sin-offering for it by itself, then it is not atoned for together with the first grinding, even though it was performed during the same lapse of awareness. It was not necessary for both of them to be atoned for through one sin-offering, since one was performed during an unwitting transgression of Shabbat, while the other was performed while he was unaware of the prohibited labors. We do not say that one act can draw along another act that was itself drawn along. And since the first grinding itself was atoned for only because it was drawn along with the first harvesting, it does not have the power to draw along an additional atonement with it.

Abaye said: The first grinding,

which was atoned for by being drawn along with the first harvesting,

also draws along

the

second grinding.

For

the designation “grinding”

» —

That is, an offering through which the prohibited labor of grinding was atoned for has the power to atone for every transgression of grinding, even if this involves one act being drawn along by another that was itself drawn along.

We raise the following difficulty:

Does Rava in fact accept

the principle

that one act can draw along another?!

Namely, that the first harvesting draws along the grinding performed with it, even though the offering was not designated for this harvesting?

But this case, in which harvesting performed when one was unaware of the prohibited labors draws along harvesting performed when one was unaware that it was Shabbat, is not considered “drawing along,” since the offering was designated for “harvesting,” and all harvestings performed during one lapse of awareness are atoned for through this offering.

But it was stated: If one ate two olive-bulk quantities of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness, and he became aware of

the sin he committed by eating

one of them,

and became liable to bring a sin-offering for it,

and then ate

another

olive-bulk

of a third portion of forbidden fat

during the same lapse of awareness as the second,

before he became aware of his eating of the second portion, and ultimately he became aware of all of them.

Rava said:

If

he brought an offering for

the

first

olive-bulk quantity, designating it at the time of consecration for that quantity, then

the first and second

are atoned for

through it, since both were eaten during one lapse of awareness.

But

the third—

is not atoned for

through it, since it was not during the same lapse of awareness as the first. We do not say that the second draws along the third, despite the fact that it was performed during the same lapse of awareness as the third. Since the offering was not designated for the second, it can atone for the third only by means of drawing along, and we do not say that one act draws along another.

And if

he brought an offering for the third—

the third and the second are atoned for

through it, since they were performed during one lapse of awareness. But

the first,

which was not performed during the same lapse of awareness as the third,

is not atoned for

.

But if

he brought an offering for the middle one—

all of them are atoned for!

For all of them were eaten during the same lapse of awareness as it.

Abaye said: Even if he brought an offering for one of them,

and it makes no difference which one,

all of them are atoned for

since we do say that one act draws along another. Therefore, even the olive-bulk quantity for which the offering was not designated draws along with it the others that were eaten during the same lapse of awareness.

It follows that Rava did not accept the principle of drawing along. And this is difficult for Rava’s statement in our discussion?

We answer:

After Rava heard

from

Abaye

the reasoning that one act draws along another, he

accepted

it as well. Rava made the statement in our discussion after accepting this principle from Abaye.

We raise an objection:

If so,

if Rava accepts the principle of drawing along, then the first

grinding

that was first

should also draw along

the final grinding. Why, then, did Rava say that the second grinding opposite it stands in its own place?!

We answer: Only

drawing along

itself

does Rava accept. But

he does not accept that one act can draw along another that was itself drawn along.

He does not accept drawing along by means of drawing along.

The first grinding itself came through drawing along, having been drawn along with the harvesting performed with it, and the offering was not designated for it. Therefore, it does not have the power to draw along the final grinding.

And we say:

It is obvious to Abaye and Rava

that harvesting draws along harvesting, even though they involve two different kinds of unwitting transgression: one was performed while he intentionally disregarded Shabbat but was unaware of the prohibited labors, and the other while he intentionally disregarded the prohibition of the labors but was unaware that it was Shabbat. Everything that he did not know during the first unwitting transgression became known to him during the second. Nevertheless, we do not say that this is considered two lapses of awareness, requiring a separate sin-offering for each one. Rather, it is considered one unwitting transgression, since he did not become aware of the sin in the interim—

It is a question for Rabbi Zeira.

For Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Asi, and some say that Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: If one harvested

or

ground half an dried-fig bulk while unaware that it was Shabbat but intentionally disregarding the prohibited labors, and then harvested

or

ground half an dried-fig bulk while intentionally disregarding Shabbat but unaware of the prohibited labors,

and he did not realize between them that he had sinned—

what is the ruling regarding combining

the two half-dried-fig bulk quantities of grinding, or of harvesting, to reach the measure of a whole dried-fig bulk?

The two sides of the question are:

Is an unwitting transgression of Shabbat and an unwitting transgression of the prohibited labors [when he did not realize between them that he had sinned] considered one lapse of awareness and one unwitting transgression, so that they combine?

Or are they considered two lapses of awareness and two unwitting transgressions, each of which is less than the required measure, in which case he is not liable for them?

He said to him:

They are

separate with regard to sin-offerings,

for if there had been a full dried-fig bulk quantity during each lapse of awareness, he would have had to bring a separate sin-offering for each unwitting transgression separately. This indicates that they are two unwitting transgressions. Therefore, they also

do not combine

so as to make him liable through combining less-than-the-required-measure quantities from each lapse of awareness.

He said to him:

And

if

whenever acts are “separate with regard to sin-offerings,” their half-measures do not combine,

who says that these matters depend on one another?

But we learned in the Mishna: If one ate

an olive-bulk of

forbidden fat,

and then ate another olive-bulk of

forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness,

even if he interrupted between them for longer than the time required to eat half a loaf, so that they are considered two acts of eating—

he is liable for only

one sin-offering,

one,

since they were eaten during one lapse of awareness.

If he ate forbidden fat, blood, notar, and piggul during one lapse of awareness,

without realizing in the interim that he had eaten something forbidden—

he is liable for each and every one,

for each prohibition he must bring a separate offering.

This is a stringency that applies to many types of forbidden substances rather than to one type.

But with regard to

the following case,

there is

a stringency that applies to one type rather than to many types:

If he ate half an olive-bulk, and then ate another half an olive-bulk of one type

of forbidden substance, during one lapse of awareness, and he did not interrupt between them for longer than the time required to eat half a loaf—

he is liable

for a sin-offering.

But if the half-olive-bulk quantities were

of two types

of forbidden substance—

he is exempt

from an offering, since two different prohibitions do not combine to reach the measure of an olive-bulk.

We raise the following difficulty:

«

“if they are of one type, he is liable”,

meaning that he is liable? Surely it is obvious that they combine!

And Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Tutani: Here we are dealing with a case where he ate them from two dishes,

in which they had been prepared in two different ways, for example, half an olive-bulk of one was roasted and half an olive-bulk of the other was cooked.

And this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: Different dishes divide!

If one ate two olive-bulk quantities of forbidden fat, each from a different dish, even during one lapse of awareness, he brings a separate offering for each olive-bulk quantity.

It might have been thought that Rabbi Yehoshua said this both leniently

with regard to two half-olive-bulk quantities, since the dishes divide them and they do not combine to make him liable for an offering,

and stringently

with regard to two olive-bulk quantities, requiring him to bring an offering for each dish.

The Mishna teaches us

that

.

Rather, two half-olive-bulk quantities combine even when they are from two different dishes. Only

with regard to stringency

did he say that two sin-offerings are required,

that is what he said.

We conclude the difficulty:

But here,

where there are two dishes,

which are separate with regard to sin-offerings, and

nevertheless

they do combine

to reach the required measure.

Should we not likewise say this with regard to two half-dried-fig bulk quantities on Shabbat?!

He said to him: Master, you are teaching

the statement of Reish Lakish

with regard to the first part

of the Mishna,

and

therefore

it is difficult for you.

But

we—

teach it with regard to the latter part, and it is not difficult for us.

For it teaches in the latter part:

If they are of two types, he is exempt.

We raise the following difficulty: Is it really

necessary to state

that two half-measures of different prohibitions do not combine to reach the measure of an olive-bulk?

And Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Tutani: In fact,

it is speaking

of one type

of forbidden substance.

And why does it call it two types?

Because

he ate them from two dishes.

.

And this teaches us that Rabbi Yehoshua said that different dishes divide both leniently and stringently:

the dishes divide. Therefore, two half-olive-bulk quantities do not combine even when they are of one type, since they are from two dishes. And with regard to Shabbat as well, we say: Since they are separate with regard to sin-offerings, they do not combine.