Shabbat 71a (עא.) — the Talmud in English

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

harvesting

performed in an unwitting transgression of Shabbat, has the capacity to

draw along

also the atonement for the second

harvesting,

which was performed in an unwitting transgression of the laws of the labors, so that it too is atoned for by that same sin-offering.

Since both the first and second acts of harvesting were performed under “one lapse of awareness of the sin”—as he did not become aware of his sin until after the second act of harvesting [although he had become aware in the interim that it was Shabbat]—the sin-offering brought for the first act of harvesting atones also for all the acts of harvesting performed during that same lapse of awareness [since one who transgresses the same prohibition twice during one lapse of awareness attains atonement through a single sin-offering].

And

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

also the atonement 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

that was second

in an intentional transgression of Shabbat and an unwitting transgression of the laws of the 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 as unwitting transgressions of the laws of the labors; therefore, he is liable to bring a separate sin-offering for each labor.

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

harvesting

that was second

draws along

the

harvesting

that was first, since it was performed during the same lapse of awareness as the second, and atones for it.

And

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

grinding

that was 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 it was designated for the second harvesting, nevertheless, since the first harvesting was atoned for, the grinding performed with it was also atoned for, because from the outset both were dependent upon a single offering. For both were performed in an unwitting transgression of Shabbat, and the offering that atones for the unwitting transgression of Shabbat necessarily atones for both of them, since there is no atonement for one without the other.

And

if the second

grinding

that

is

opposite it

in place of

the first grinding—

stands in its own place,

so that he is liable to bring a sin-offering for it separately. It is not atoned for together with the first grinding, even though it was performed during the same lapse of awareness as the first. For it was not necessary that both be atoned for through one sin-offering, since one was performed in an unwitting transgression of Shabbat and the other in an unwitting transgression of the laws of the labors. And we do not say that one act “draws along” another act that was itself drawn along. Since the first grinding itself was atoned for only by virtue of its being drawn along with the first harvesting, it does not have the capacity to draw along an additional atonement with it.

Abaye said: The grinding

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

also draws along

the second

grinding. For

the designation

“grinding”—

is one!

That is, an offering through which the labor of grinding was atoned for has the capacity to atone for every sin involving grinding, even if this constitutes “one act drawing along another act that was itself drawn along.”

And we raised an objection:

But does Rava hold

as a general principle

that there is drawing along?!

That the first harvesting draws along the grinding performed with it, despite the fact that the offering was not designated for this harvesting? [

However, the fact that harvesting performed in an unwitting transgression of the laws of the labors draws along harvesting performed in an unwitting transgression of Shabbat is not considered “drawing along,” since the offering was designated for “harvesting,” and all acts of harvesting performed during one lapse of awareness are atoned for by this offering ].

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

his sin—that he had sinned by eating

one of them,

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

and then ate

another

olive-bulk portion

of a third portion of forbidden fat

during the lapse of awareness of 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 portion, saying at the time of its designation that it would be for that portion, then

the first and the second

are atoned for

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

But

the third—

is not atoned for

by it, since it was not part of the same lapse of awareness as the first. And 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 second. 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 there is drawing along.

And if

he brought an offering for the third—

the third and the second are atoned for

by 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

by it.

However, if

he brought an offering for the middle one—

all of them are atoned for!

For all of them were performed 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 it was—

all of them are atoned for

since we say that there is drawing along. Therefore, even the olive-bulk portion for which the offering was not designated draws along with it the others that were performed during the same lapse of awareness.

It follows that Rava did not accept the principle of drawing along. But this contradicts Rava’s statement in our passage?

And we answer:

After he heard it

Rava

from Abaye,

the reasoning concerning drawing along, he

accepted

it as well. And Rava stated the ruling in our passage after accepting it from Abaye.

And we ask:

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

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

grinding

that was first

should also draw along

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

And we answer: Only

drawing along

itself

does Rava hold. But

he does not hold that

one act draws along another act that was itself drawn along. The first grinding itself came by virtue of drawing along, as it was drawn along with the harvesting performed with it, and the offering was not designated for it. Therefore, it does not have the capacity to draw along the last grinding.

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 types of unwitting transgression: One was performed in an intentional transgression of Shabbat and an unwitting transgression of the laws of the labors, while the other was performed in an intentional transgression of the laws of the labors and an unwitting transgression of Shabbat; and everything of which he had been unaware during the first unwitting transgression became known to him during the second. Nevertheless, we do not say that this is equivalent to 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—

This 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 a dried fig in an unwitting transgression of Shabbat and an intentional transgression of the laws of the labors, and then he returned and harvested

or

ground half a dried fig in an intentional transgression of Shabbat and an unwitting transgression of the laws of the labors,

and he did not become aware between them that he had sinned—

what is the ruling: Do

the two half-dried-fig measures of grinding or of harvesting combine to form a full dried-fig measure?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Does an unwitting transgression of Shabbat and an unwitting transgression of the laws of the labors [when he did not become aware between them that he had sinned] constitute one lapse of awareness and one unwitting transgression, so that they combine,

or do they constitute two lapses of awareness and two unwitting transgressions, each of which contains less than the requisite measure, so that he is not liable for them?

He said to him:

They are

divided with regard to sin-offerings,

for if there were a full dried-fig measure in each lapse of awareness, he would have to bring a separate sin-offering for each of the unwitting transgressions separately, indicating that they are two unwitting transgressions, therefore they also

do not combine

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

He said to him:

And

if

whenever they are “divided with regard to sin-offerings,” half-measures do not combine,

who says that these matters are dependent upon one another?

But we learned in the Mishna: If one ate

an olive-bulk of

forbidden fat,

and then ate an 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 constitute two acts of eating—

he is liable only for

one sin-offering,

one,

since they were performed during one lapse of awareness.

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

without becoming aware in the interim that he had eaten a prohibited substance—

he is liable for each one and one,

a separate offering for each prohibition.

This is a stringency that applies to many types as compared with one type.

However, with regard to

this

matter stated below, there is

a stringency that applies to one type as compared with many types:

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

of prohibited food 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 portions were

of two types

of prohibited food—

he is exempt

from an offering, since two different prohibitions do not combine to form an olive-bulk.

And we raised an objection:

Is it necessary to state that

“for one type he is liable”—that he is liable?

It is obvious that they combine!

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

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

And it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: Serving dishes divide!

If one ate two olive-bulk portions of forbidden fat, each from a different serving dish [even during one lapse of awareness], he brings a separate offering for each olive-bulk portion.

Lest you say: Rabbi Yehoshua said that this applies both leniently

in the case of two half-olive-bulk portions, so that the serving dishes divide them and they do not combine to create liability for an offering,

and stringently

in the case of two olive-bulk portions, requiring an offering for each serving dish,

the Mishna teaches us

that

he did not say this with regard to leniency.

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

with regard to stringency

did he say that two sin-offerings are required,

that is what he said.

And we conclude the objection:

But here,

in the case of two serving dishes,

where they are divided with regard to sin-offerings, and

nevertheless

they do combine

to form the requisite measure,

should we not likewise say this with regard to two half-dried-fig measures on Shabbat?!

He said to him: Master, he teaches

this statement of Reish Lakish

with regard to the first clause

of the Mishna,

and

therefore

it is difficult for him.

But

we—

we teach it with regard to the final clause, and it is not difficult for us.

For the final clause teaches:

“For two types, he is exempt.”

And we raised an objection: Is it

necessary to state

that two half-measures of different prohibitions do not combine to form an olive-bulk?!

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

it is speaking

of one type

of prohibited food.

And why does it call them two types?

Because

he ate them from two serving dishes.

And it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that serving dishes divide.

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

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