משנה: כְּלָל גָּדוֹל אָֽמְרוּ בַשַּׁבָּת. כָּל־הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. וְהַיּוֹדֵעַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה חַייָב עַל כָּל־שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת. וְהַיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא שַׁבָּת וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה חַייָב עַל כָּל־מְלָאכָה וּמְלָאכָה. הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה אַחַת אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת: MISHNAH: A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath. Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath1A Jew who never has heard of the laws of the Sabbath. The rule is formulated in terms of oblivion because all laws of purification sacrifices require an element of oblivion. and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for one purification sacrifice only. But one who knows the principle of the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths2In error. is obligated for every single Sabbath; and one who knows that it is the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for every single work. One who performs many works similar to one work3Actions which are classified under the same category of the official 39 prohibitions of the Sabbath. is obligated only for one purification sacrifice.
הלכה: כְּלָל גָּדוֹל אָֽמְרוּ בַשַּׁבָּת כול׳. מָהוּ גָדוֹל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. שֶׁהוּא גָדוֹל מִכְּלָל שְׁבִיעִית. שֶׁהַשַּׁבָּת חָלָה עַל הָכֹּל וּשְׁבִיעִית אֵינָהּ חָלָה אֶלָּא עַל עֲבוֹדַת הָאָרֶץ בִּלְבַד. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. כְּלָל גָּדוֹל אָֽמְרוּ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. מָהוּ כְּלָל גָדוֹל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. שֶׁהוּא גָדוֹל מִכְּלָל מַעְשְׂרוֹת. שֶׁהַשְּׁבִיעִית חָלָה בֵין עַל אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם בֵּין עַל אוֹכְלֵי בְהֵמָה. וּמַעְשְׂרוֹת אֵינָן חָלִין אֶלָּא עַל אוֹכְלֵי אָדָם בִּלְבַד. תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. כְּלָל גָּדוֹל אָֽמְרוּ בְמַעְשְׂרוֹת. מָהוּ כְּלָל גָדוֹל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. שֶׁהוּא גָדוֹל מִכְּלָל פֵּיאָה. שֶׁהַמַּעְשְׂרוֹת חָלִין בֵּין עַל דָּבָר שֶׁמַּכְנִסוֹ לְקִיּוּם וּבֵין עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם. וּפֵיאָה אֵינָהּ חָלָה אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁמַּכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם. וְאִית דְבָעֵי מֵימַר. מָהוּ גָדוֹל. מִיכָּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ. HALAKHAH: “A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath,” etc. What means “comprehensive”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than the principle of the Sabbatical year, since the Sabbath falls on everything but the Sabbatical year12Sabbath prohibitions refer to all kinds of work everywhere; Sabbatical prohibitions refer only to agricultural work in the Land of Israel. falls on agricultural work in the Land only. There we have stated13Mishnah Ševiˋit 7:1.: “A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbatical year.” What means “a comprehensive principle”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than tithes, for the Sabbatical year falls on human food and animal feed but tithes apply to human food only14Mishnah Maˋserot 1:1: “anything that is food, is guarded, and grows from the earth, is subject to tithes.” Babli 68a. G everywhere reads not מַכָנִיסוֹ “what one stores” but מִיכָּנָסוֹ “what he had stored” making the obligation of tithes dependent on the action of the individual.. Bar Qappara stated: a comprehensive principle they said about tithes15Our Mishnah Maˋserot 1:1 which is stated as “a principle” is “a comprehensive principle” for bar Qappara. Babli 68a.. What means “a comprehensive principle”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than peah. for tithes apply both to food that is stored and to food which is not stored, but peah applies only to food used as stored staple16Mishnah Peah 1:4: “They established a principle for peah: Everything that is food, is treated as private property, grows from the earth, is harvested at one time, and is stored, is subject to peah.” Peah is the corner of the field which is reserved for the poor and may not be taken by the farmer.. Some want to say, what means “comprehensive”? From here that there are derivatives17There are categories and sub-categories as for the Sabbath. This is the preferred explanation of the Babli, 68a..
אֲנָן תַּנִּינָן. כָּל־הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת. תַּנֵּיי דְבֵית רִבִּי. כָּל־שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כְּמַתְנִיתָן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי דְבֵית רִבִּי. הָא רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אָמַר. כָּל־הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת. הָא אִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ כָּל־עִיקַּר פָּטוּר. מִן מַה דְרַב תַּנֵּי מַתְנִיתָן וּפָתַר לָהּ. אֵי זֶהוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת. קָטָן שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה בֵין הַגּוֹיִם. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא. הָא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל־שֶׁאֵין יוֹדֵעַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת. הָא אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וְשָׁכַח חַייָב. מִן מַה דָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי אָבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֶּן חֲנִינָא. כָּל־הָדָא הִלְכְתַא כְּרִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִן אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא. בָּעוּן קוֹמֵי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יָסָא. אַתָּ מַה שָׁמַעְתָ מִן אָבוּךְ מִן דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר. כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לוֹן רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. לֹא אָמַר כֵּן. אֶלָּא רִבִּי סִימוֹן בַּר זֵבְדָּא הֲוָה פָשַׁט עִם בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וּשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ כְּהָדָא דְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. We have stated: “Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.” They stated in the House of Rebbi: Anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath18The only other place in which this formulation appears in our sources is Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Pereq 1(7).. Rebbi Eleazar follows our Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan follows what was stated in the House of Rebbi. But Rebbi Eliezer said, “anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.19In Mishnah Keritut 3:10 (quoted later in the Chapter, Note 48) he states that one who performs many works of the same category on many Sabbaths in one oblivion is liable for separate sacrifices for each occasion; opposed by R. Aqiba. This refers to the second case trated in Mishnah 1.” Therefore if he does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath is he not liable? Since Rav stated our Mishnah and explained it: who is the one who does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath? A child who was taken prisoner among the Gentiles20He never heard of a Sabbath prohibition.. This implies that both versions are the same21There is no material difference between the Mishnah text and the formulation of the House of Rebbi.. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath. Therefore (if he does not) [if he did]22The text in [brackets] from G is clearly the correct one, not the one in (parentheses) from the Leiden ms. know and forgot he is liable. Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once23As will be stated in the next paragraph, all actions in one episode of oblivion trigger only one obligation of sacrifice.. This implies that both versions are the same. They asked before Rebbi Yasa’s son: What did you hear from your father about Rebbi Yose24R. Yose ben Ḥanina.? He said, following Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥizqiah told them, he did not say so. But Rebbi Simon bar Zavda was simply with Rebbi Yose’s son and heard from him following Rebbi Eliezer25The formulation in the Mishnah is not practice..
מְנָן אִלֵּין מִילַּייָא. וְעָשָׂ֕ה אַחַת. וְעָשָׂה הֵנָּה. וְעָשָׂ֕ה מֵהֵֽנָּה: וְעָשָׂ֕ה אַחַת. לְחַייֵב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. הֵנָּה. לְחַייֵב עַל כּוּלְֹּהֹן אַחַת. מֵהֵֽנָּה: לְחַייֵב עַל הַתּוֹלְדוֹת. אוֹ נֵימַר. בָּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי זַכַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זִיבֵּחַ קִיטֵּר וְנִיסַּךְ בְּהֶעֱלֶם אֶחָת חַייָב עַל כָּל אַחַת וָאַחַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בַּבָלַייָא. עֲבַרְתְּ בָיָדָךְ תְּלָתָא נְהָרִין וְאִיתָבַּרְתְּ. אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. עַד לָא יַתְבְּרִינֵּהּ בְּיָדֵיהּ יֵשׁ כָּאן אַחַת אֵין כָּאן הֵנָּה. מִן דְּתַבְרָהּ בְּיָדֵיהּ יֵשׁ כָּאן הֵנָּה אֵין כָָּאן אַחַת. וִיהִי כֵן בָּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. בָּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ כַּעֲבוֹדַת הַגָּבוֹהַּ בְּהִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה. בָּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ לְחַייֵב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. בָּעֲבוֹדַת הַגָּבוֹהַּ לְחַייֵב עַל כּוּלְֹּהֹן אַחַת. בְּהִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה לְחַייֵב עַל מִקְצָתָהּ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצָחָק. כְּתִיב אִ֣ם הַכֹּהֵ֧ן הַמָּשִׁ֛יחַ יֶֽחֱטָ֖א לְאַשְׁמַ֣ת הָעָ֑ם וְהֵבִיא פָּר. מִצְוֹת שֶׁהַמָּשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן פָּר. יָצָאת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עָלֶיהָ פָר אֶלָּא שְׂעִירָה בִלְבַד. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי חֲלָבִים וָעֲרָיוֹת הֲרֵי הַמָּשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא עָלֶיהָ פָּר. לָא אֲתִינָן מַתְנֵי אֶלָּא דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן תּוֹלְדוֹת. חֲלָבִים אֵין לָהֶן תּוֹלְדוֹת. עֲרָיוֹת עָשָׂה בָהֶן אֶת הַמְעָרֶה כְגוֹמֵר. חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרִין. שַׁבָּ֥ת הִיא לַֽיי. לְחַייֵב עַל כָּל־שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת. אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. כְּתִיב כָּל־הָֽעוֹשֶׂה ב֛וֹ מְלָאכָ֖ה יוּמָֽת: לֹא הָעוֹשֶׂה בוֹ וּבַחֲבֵירוֹ. אַתָּ אָמַר. אֵין הָשַּׁבָּתוֹת מִצְטָֽרְפוּת. חוֹלְקוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן רִבִּי בּוּן. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינָן מִצְטָֽרְפוּת כָּךְ אֵין חוֹלְקוֹת. From where these things? He did one, and did these, and did of these. He did one, to obligate for each one separately; and did these, to obligate for all of them together26Lev. 4:2 reads: If a person should sin inadvertently against any of the prohibitions of the Eternal and did one of these. The complicated structure of this verse is analyzed in detail in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parshata 1, Pereq 1. The analysis of the Yerushalmi is attributed in the Babli 103b to R. Yose ben Ḥanina, mentioned at the end of the preceding Paragraph. Echoes of the discussion in Sifra are in the Babli 70a.
The questions raised about the verse are twofold. If it had simply said and did one, we would have inferred that every single infraction needs a separate sacrifice. If it had said and did these, all infractions committed in one state of inadvertence would be covered by one sacrifice. The mention of one in parallel with these creates a seeming contradiction. In addition, in each case the prefix מ “of” in standard rabbinic interpretation is read as “not all”. Then what does it mean that a single prohibition is partially violated?. Of these, to obligate for derivatives27The last question is easily answered for the Sabbath. Later in the Chapter the forbidden actions on the Sabbath are described by 39 categories. The particular actions labelling the categories are called אַב מְלָאכָה “primary actions”; any other action subsumed under the same category is a תּוֹלְדָה “derivative”. All actions subsumed under the same category are considered identical in some abstract sense even if they actually are very different; e. g. plucking feathers from a bird is forbidden as a derivative of shearing. Any one of the actions subsumed under one category triggers the liability for a sacrifice; it is not necessary that all actions carrying the same label be acted on. On the other hand, most actions trigger liability only if a certain minimum of work was done, as will be detailed in the following Chapters; an action which is too insignificant remains forbidden but does not trigger liability for a sacrifice.. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken28The expression is difficult to understand since one does not cross rivers (in this case Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan) by hand but by boat. Since the expression is confirmed later in the Chapter and in Nazir 6:1, it cannot be emended. It seems that Rav (not Rebbi) Zakkai swam crossing the rivers on his way to Palestine.; he is liable only once29Sanhedrin Chapter 7:11 Note 256. Worshipping strange deities in the way prescribed for Jewish worship in all its forms is one and the same offense. But worshipping strange deities in their own characteristic ways is a separate offense for each deity.. Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one30Since the question was raised whether Lev. 4:2 could be interpreted to refer only to idolatry the answer seems to be in the negative, since for R. Zakkai there are only single offenses (one) and no general category (these) whereas for R. Joḥanan the situation is the inverse, in contrast to the Sabbath when liability for a sacrifice can be triggered either by a single action (one) or by a multiplicity of different actions all falling under the same category (these).. But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them31Since in the Second Commandment prostration is mentioned before worship of strange deities it clearly is a separate offense. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:11 Notes 252 ff.. Like prostration to obligate for partial action32It is punishable even if not executed in the full manner prescribed for the Temple, lying down flat with outstretched arms and legs.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written33Lev. 4:3., if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people … he has to bring a bull. This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat34Horaiot Mishnah 2:8.. They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives35Fat is forbidden if it is from an animal whose kind is acceptable as a sacrifice and which is of the kind exactly prescribed in Lev. to be burned on the altar. There are no extensions or derivatives.. For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse36Forbidden sexual relations are exactly those described in Lev. 18. In addition in Lev. 20:18 the sex act is defined at touching of sexual organs; the only actions triggering the liability for a sacrifice are explicitly spelled out in the verses; there are no categories nor derivatives. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:5 (Notes 72–85).. The colleagues say, a Sabbath it is for the Eternal, to obligate for each single Sabbath37Lev. 23:3. Since the attempt to derive the rules of the Mishnah from Lev. 4:2 ran into difficulties, they propose a direct interpretation of verses referring to the Sabbath only.. Rebbi Ila said, it is written38Ex. 35:2. The Sabbath is mentioned in the singular.: Anybody doing work on it shall by put to death, not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate39That Sabbaths do not combine means that if somebody did less than a punishable amount of work on one Sabbath and again less than a punishable amount the next Sabbath they do not add up to the liability for a sacrifice even if the actions were committed in the same period of oblivion of the rules of the Sabbath. In this the rules of the Sabbath parallel the rules of forbidden fat. Eating forbidden fat triggers the liability for a sacrifice only if a minimum was eaten within the time of a meal (defined as time needed to eat half a loaf of bread, Horaiot 3:3 Note 66). Less than minimum amounts eaten at different times do not trigger liability. On the other hand, once liability was triggered within one period of oblivion, it automatically covers all other offenses of the same kind during the same period of oblivion. The question is now asked whether if an inadvertent desecration of the Sabbath triggered the obligation of a sacrifice and the perpetrator did not become aware of his offense before committing the same also on another Sabbath, he is liable for only one or for several sacrifices?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun40Since the father is known in the Babli as Rabin, the reading of G, בין, seems better than the reading everywhere in the Leiden ms., בון. said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.
גָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה בֵּין הַגּוֹיִם. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. חַד אָמַר. מוֹנֶה שִׁשָּׁה וְעוֹשֶׂה שַׁבָּת. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. עוֹשֶׂה שַׁבָּת וּמוֹנֶה שִׁשָּׁה. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֶלְעָזָר בְּשֵׁם רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב. מוֹנֶה שִׁשָּׁה וְעוֹשֶׂה שַׁבָּת. חֲמִשָּׁה וְעוֹשֶׂה שַׁבָּת. אַרְבָּעָה וְעוֹשֶׂה שַׁבָּת. שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעוֹשֶׂה שַׁבָּת. שְׁנַיִם וְעוֹשֵׂה שַׁבָּת. אֶחָד וְעוֹשֶׂה שַׁבָּת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אִין אִישְׁתַּבַּאי בִּתְלָתָא הוּא עֲבַד בְּשׁוּבְתָא. רַב הֲוָה חֵיילֵיהּ. לִתְרֵין מַחְזִירִין הוּא עֲבַד שׁוּבְתָא וְאין לא לִתְמוֹהַּ. וִיחוּשׁ לְכָל־הַיָּמִים. כְּהָדָא. קִידֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה בְעֵילָם. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. אִיתְפַּלָּגוֹן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. חוֹשֵׁשׁ לָכָל הַנָּשִׁים. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לָכָל הַַנָּשִׁים. תַּמָּן יֵשׁ לוֹ תַקָּנָה. יָכוֹל הוֹא לִישָּׂא גִיּוֹרֶת. יָכוֹל הוֹא לִישָּׂא מְשׁוּחְרֶרֶת. הָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ. תַּמָּן אָֽמְרִין. חוֹשֵׁשׁ לְכָל הַיָּמִים וְעוֹשֶׂה כְדֵי קִיּוּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ. An adult who was taken captive among Gentiles. Rav and Samuel, one said, he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, but the other said, he keeps the Sabbath and counts six41He is now living in a society which knows no weeks. From the moment in which he realizes that he has lost track of the days of the week in one opinion he presumes that this day be Sunday and keeps his week or he presumes that it is Sabbath and continues from there. Babli 69b, the dispute is between a student and the son of Rav.. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, five and keeps the Sabbath, four and keeps the Sabbath, three and keeps the Sabbath, two and keeps the Sabbath, one and keeps the Sabbath42Then he is presumed to keep some Sabbath correctly.. Rebbi Mana said, if he was abducted on Tuesday he makes the Sabbath (great was his power) [profane]43In this and the next sentence the Leiden text (in parentheses) is incomprehensible; the Genizah text [in brackets] makes approximate sense. Rebbi Mana sets out to prove that R. Naḥman’s scheme does not work.. At the second period he makes the Sabbath (if not to wonder) [only the eighth]44It is true that if he realizes his problem on Sunday then he correctly keeps the next Sabbath. If he realizes it on Monday, then he keeps the second Sabbath. But if it is Tuesday then it does not work. All the presumed Sabbaths of Rav Naḥman are on workdays. If we presume that Rav Naḥman’s scheme is periodic, that he pauses after 6,5,4,3,2,1,6,5,4,3,2,1,6,… days then his Sabbath will only be correct in the second period, in fact the seventh of his Sabbaths in the eighth try. In the following scheme the days of the week are numbered (Sabbath = 7) and Rav Naḥman’s Sabbaths are given in bold face:
3 4 5 6 7 ׀׀ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ׀׀
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ׀׀ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ׀׀
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ׀׀ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7׀׀
The correct observation of the Sabbath first occurs in the second circuit, the eighth try, as spelled out in the text.. Therefore he should worry about all days, as by the following: If he preliminarily married a woman in Elam45Liebermann correctly conjectures that “in Elam” is an error for בָּעוֹלָם “in the world”. He appointed an agent to get him a wife; the agent performed the preliminary marriage to him but he knows neither her identity nor her location. He has to presume that any woman he meets is either his wife or a close relative of hers.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he worries about all women. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not worry about all women. There he has a fix, he may marry a convert, he may marry a freedwoman46Who was recently converted or freed.. Here what do you have? There, they are saying, he worries about all days and works for the necessities of life47Babli 69b. Or zaruaˋ Šabbat § 15..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה שָׁאַלְתִּי אֶת רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה אַחַת בְּעֶלֵם אֶחָד מָהוּ. חַייָב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן אוֹ אַחַת עַל כָּל אַחַת וָאַחַת. אָמַר לוֹ. חַייָב עַל כָּל אַחַת וָאַחַת מִקַּל וָחֹמֶר. וּמָה אִם הַנִּידָּה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ תּוֹצָאוֹת הַרְבֵּה וְחַטָּאוֹת הַרְבֵּה חַייָב עַל כָּל אַחַת וָאַחַת. שַׁבָּת שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ תּוֹצָאוֹת הַרְבֵּה וְחַטָּאוֹת הַרְבֵּה אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַייָב עַל כָּל אַחַת וָאַחַת. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַנִּדָּה שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי אַזְהָרוֹת. שֶׁהוּא מוּזְהָר עַל הַנִּידָּה וְהַנִּידָּה מוּזְהֶרֶת עָלָיו. תֹּאמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא אַזְהָרָה אַחַת. אָמַר לִי הַבָּא עַל הַקְּטַנּוֹת יוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אֶלָּא אַזְהָרָה אַחַת וְחַייָב עַל כָּל אַחַת וָאַחַת. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּבָּא עַל הַקְּטַנּוֹת שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן עַכְשָׁיו יֵשׁ בָּהֶן לְאַחַר זְמָן. תֹּאמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא אֶחָד. לֹא עַכְשָׁיו וְלֹא אַחַר זְמָן. אָמַר לִי הַבָּא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה יוֹכִיחַ. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ. הַבְּהֵמָה כַשַּׁבָּת: There, we have stated48Mishnah Keritut 3:10.: “Rebbi Aqiba said, I asked Rebbi Eliezer: If somebody performs many works on many Sabbaths all of the same category in one period of oblivion, what49As the discussion of this Mishnah will point out, it is not stated whether the oblivion refers to the fact that it is the Sabbath, or that this kind of work is forbidden, or both. Therefore the answer cannot be given by quoting the second part of Mishnah 1 in this Chapter.? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one separately? He told him, he is liable for each occurrence separately by an argument de minore ad majus. Since for the menstruating woman, which does not entail many ramifications nor many purification sacrifices,50There is only one prohibition and for one sex act one cannot become liable for more than one sacrifice. he is liable for each single occurrence51In Mishnah Keritut 3:7, a statement of Rabban Gamliel and R. Joshua. A person having 5 wives slept with each of them when she was impure in one period of oblivion is liable for 5 sacrifices., for the Sabbath which has many ramifications52There are categories and derivatives requiring one and the same sacrifice. and many purification sacrifices53There are different categories, each one requiring a separate sacrifice. it is only logical that he be liable for each single occurrence. I told him, no. If you mention the menstruating woman where there are two warnings, for he is warned about a menstruating woman and the menstruating woman is warned about him54The prohibition for the male is spelled out in Lev. 18:19. The prohibition for the female is implied by the fact that punishment for an infraction is equal for male and female, Lev. 20:18. There can be no punishment unless there is a prohibition., what can you say about the Sabbath where there is only one warning55Since the Sabbath is not a person, only the human is prohibited from violating the Sabbath.? He said to me, one who has intercourse with an underage girl shall prove it, where there is only one warning,56Since an underage person cannot be criminally liable, warnings do not apply to her. The intercourse prohibited with an underage girl is one which either is incestuous or adulterous. but he is liable for each single occurrence. I told him, no. If you mention the underage girl who even though there is no warning now there will be one in the future57An underage girl is a female; prohibitions apply to adult females., what can you say about the Sabbath where there is only one [warning] whether now or in the future. He told me, one having intercourse with an animal shall prove it. I said to him, the animal is like the Sabbath58It remains unresolved how many sacrifices are due from a man having intercourse with several animals while he is oblivious of the prohibition of bestiality..
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. בִּזְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וּבְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת שְׁאָלוֹ. בְּדָה תַנִּינָן. מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה. לֹא עַל הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת הוּא מִתְחַייֵב. רַבָּא בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. בִּשִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּבִזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת שְׁאָלוֹ. בְּדָה תַנִּינָן. שַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה. לֹא עַל הַמְּלָאכוֹת מִתְחַייֵב. הָא רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. בִּזְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וּבְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת שְׁאָלוֹ. הוֹדִי לֵיהּ וְהוּא לֹא הוֹדִי. מִן מַה דָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. כָּל־הָדָא הִילְכְתַא כְּרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִן אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה דְלֹא הוֹדִי לֵיהּ. הַווֵי רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא. אִם בִּשִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּבְזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת שְׁאָלוֹ. הוֹדִי לֵיהּ לֹא הוֹרִי לֵיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה דְלֹא הוֹדִי לֵיהּ. דְּתַנֵּי. יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהִיא שַׁבָּת. וְיוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהִיא מְלָאכָה. אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם מְלָאכָה הִיא זוֹ שֶׁחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ כָרֵת. אִם מֵעִנְייָן אָבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת עָשָׂה. חַייָב עַל כָּל־מְלָאכָה וּמְלָאכָה. אִם מֵעִנְייָן מְלָאכָה אַחַת עָשָׂה. חַייָב עַל כָּל־הֶעֱלֵם וְהֶעֱלֵם. מְִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן הֶעֱלִימוֹת הַרְבֵּה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה הֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מִן מַה דָלָא מְתִיב לֵ[י]הּ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה דְלָא הוֹדִי לֵיהּ. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work59He knows that it is the Sabbath but he does not know that work is forbidden on the Sabbath. Since purification offerings only are possible for inadvertent sins, he becomes liable by doing the work if later he learns that the work was forbidden.. About this we have stated “many works”. He is not liable because of Sabbaths. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work60He knows all the laws of the Sabbath but forgot that the day was a Sabbath. If he does work he becomes liable once for each Sabbath spent in oblivion even if he does work of many categories.. About this we have stated “many Sabbaths”. He is not liable because of the works. Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not concede to him61Did R. Aqiba convince R. Eliezer or vice versa?? Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once23As will be stated in the next paragraph, all actions in one episode of oblivion trigger only one obligation of sacrifice.. This implies that he62Since the rabbis follow R. Aqiba, R. Eliezer cannot have conceded. did not concede to him. (It was) [Now]63The text of G [in brackets] seems better than the Leiden text (in parentheses). Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not (instruct) [concede to]64At all occurrences the scribe first wrote הורי and then corrected to הודי except on this one occasion. Therefore also here the text of G [in brackets] is the correct one. him? Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, a baraita implies that he did not concede to him, as it was stated65Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Pereq 1(7)., “ ‘I know that it is the Sabbath, I know that this is work. But I do not know that this is work for which one becomes liable to extirpation66Purification sacrifices are possible only for inadvertent infractions punishable either by extirpation or by death..’ If he did work of several categories he is liable for every single work67Every single category of work which he did.. If he did work of one category only, he is liable for every episode of oblivion if there were many oblivions, but if all was one oblivion he is liable only once.” Since he did not quote this as an objection it implies that he did not concede to him68Since R. Aqiba did not point out to R. Eliezer that the Tanna of the baraita disagrees with him, he must have known that the latter disagrees. (In Sifra the entire theory is attributed to R. Yose of the school of R. Aqiba, two generations after R. Eliezer). G ends here..
הָא רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. בִּזְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וּבְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת. וּשְׁאָלוֹ. הָא בִּשִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּבִזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת אַף רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר יוֹדֵי לְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. וִיתִיבִינֵיהּ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. הֲרֵי מֵזִיד בַּשַּׁבָּת וְשׁוֹגֵג בִּמְלָאכוֹת. הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ תּוֹצָאוֹת הַרְבֵּה וְחַטָּאוֹת הַרְבֵּה. וְאַתְּ מוֹרִי לֵיהּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מִן מַה דָלָא מְתִיב לָהּ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא. Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work59He knows that it is the Sabbath but he does not know that work is forbidden on the Sabbath. Since purification offerings only are possible for inadvertent sins, he becomes liable by doing the work if later he learns that the work was forbidden.. Therefore, in the case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work even Rebbi Eliezer should agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he is liable only once69Since a purification offering is possible only for error and the error was about one thing only, viz., that he did not realize that it was Sabbath, there should be only one liability.. But then Rebbi Aqiba should have objected, is there not the case of intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work70Clearly here one has to read: error regarding the Sabbath and intent regarding work. This was the scribe’s text; the error is the corrector’s., where there are many ramifications or many purification sacrifices and you are instructing that he is liable only once! Since he did not object in this way it implies that one case is like the other case71In every case does R. Eliezer require a separate sacrifice for each infraction of the Sabbath. The difference between the two versions in the name of Rav Ḥisda is purely semantic; they agree in fact..
הָא רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. בִּשִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּבִזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת. וּשְׁאָלוֹ. הָדָה בִּזְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וּבְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת אַף רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה יוֹדֵי לְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁהוּא חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. וִיתִיבִינֵיהּ רִבִּי אֱלִעֶזֶר. הֲרֵי שׁוֹגֵג בַּשַּׁבָּת מֵזִיד בִּמְלָאכוֹת. הֲרֵי אֵין בָּהּ תּוֹצָאוֹת הַרְבֵּה וְחַטָּאוֹת הַרְבֵּה. וְאַתְּ מוֹדֵי לִי שֶׁהוּא חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. מִן מַה דָלָא מְתִיב לֵיהּ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. הִיא הָדָא הִיא הָדָא. Now Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. Therefore about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work even Rebbi Aqiba will agree with Rebbi Eliezer that he is liable for every single one72Since the question was about works which all belong to the same category, R. Eliezer must hold that the knowledge of which day of the week it is separates one Sabbath from the next; if the person did not know that a certain kind of work is forbidden, each Sabbath creates a new and separate infraction and therefore liability.. Then Rebbi Eliezer should have objected to him, is there not error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the works73Read: Intent regarding the Sabbath and error regarding work; corrector’s error. where there are not many ramifications and many purification sacrifices and you are agreeing with me that he is liable for every single one. Since he did not object in this way it implies that one case is like the other case74One arrives at the same conclusion as before..
הָא רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. בִּשִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּבִזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת שְׁאָלוֹ. וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם שִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת אַתְּ תּוֹפְסוֹ. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בָּא. שְׁתַּיִם שְׁאָלוֹ. מֵזִיד בַּשַּׁבָּת וְשׁוֹגֵג בִּמְלָאכוֹת. שֶׁיְּהֵא חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. שׁוֹגֵג בַּשַּׁבָּת וּמֵזִיד בִּמְלָאכוֹת מָהוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת הַתּוֹלְדוֹת כְּעִיקָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר דַּסַּיי וְתַנֵּיי דְבֵית רִבִּי כֵן. הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה אַחַת בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת מָהוּ. חַייָב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּם אוֹ אַחַת עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה אַחַת. הָדָא הִיא מֵזִיד בַּשַּׁבָּת וְשׁוֹגֵג בִּמְלָאכוֹת. שַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה אַחַת הָדָא הִיא שׁוֹגֵג בַּשַּׁבָּת וּמֵזִיד בִּמְלָאכוֹת. Now Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. Do you not catch him because of the error regarding the Sabbath75This is the same question as before, Note 69, as introduction to the opinion of R. Ḥizqiah in the name of R. Abba. Babli Keritut 16a.? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: He asked him two questions. About intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work that he be liable for every single one. In case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding works does one treat the derivatives like that main item76This introduces a new question. We agree that R. Eliezer holds that each Sabbath is a new entity whose desecration triggers liability. Does he agree that on one Sabbath all infractions of the same category cause only one liability or do actions which are different, even though classified in the same category, trigger different liabilities? Then more than 39 liabilities could be created on one Sabbath, against the Mishnah here and in Keritut.? Rebbi Jacob ben Dasai said, and in the House of Rebbi it was stated so: “If somebody performs many works on many Sabbaths all of the same category in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or once for each single one?” Many works of the same category, this describes intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. Many Sabbaths all of the same category, this describes error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work77This subsumes both opinions attributed to Rav Ḥisda..
הָא רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא וְרִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. בִּזְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וּבְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת שְׁאָלוֹ. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם מִתְחַייֵב עַל הַזָּדוֹן. אַתְּ נוֹתֵן שִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת עַל זְדוֹן שַׁבָּת. וְדִכְווָתָהּ. שׁוֹגֵג בַּשַּׁבָּת וּמֵזִיד בִּמְלָאכָה. אַתְּ נוֹתֵן שִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת עַל זְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת לְחַייֵב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. וְלֵית לְרִבִּי אֱלִעֶזֶר לְאַחַת. לְחַייֵב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. גָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה לְבֵין הַגּוֹיִם חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding works. Can anybody become liable intentionally78Intentional sins can never be atoned by a sacrifice.? You superimpose the error regarding works over the intent regarding the Sabbath79Even though he knows that it is the Sabbath and he intentionally does the work, if he does not know that this particular action is forbidden, it is an unintentional sin and creates liability for a sacrifice.. Similarly, in case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work you superimpose the error regarding the Sabbath over the intent regarding works to hold him liable for each single occurrence. Does Rebbi Eliezer not accept one, to obligate for each one separately26,Lev. 4:2 reads: If a person should sin inadvertently against any of the prohibitions of the Eternal and did one of these. The complicated structure of this verse is analyzed in detail in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parshata 1, Pereq 1. The analysis of the Yerushalmi is attributed in the Babli 103b to R. Yose ben Ḥanina, mentioned at the end of the preceding Paragraph. Echoes of the discussion in Sifra are in the Babli 70a.
The questions raised about the verse are twofold. If it had simply said and did one, we would have inferred that every single infraction needs a separate sacrifice. If it had said and did these, all infractions committed in one state of inadvertence would be covered by one sacrifice. The mention of one in parallel with these creates a seeming contradiction. In addition, in each case the prefix מ “of” in standard rabbinic interpretation is read as “not all”. Then what does it mean that a single prohibition is partially violated?80Probably the reference to these, etc., is missing since the quote of part of the baraita from Sifra is intended to refer to all its parts.? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: An adult who was abducted among Gentiles41He is now living in a society which knows no weeks. From the moment in which he realizes that he has lost track of the days of the week in one opinion he presumes that this day be Sunday and keeps his week or he presumes that it is Sabbath and continues from there. Babli 69b, the dispute is between a student and the son of Rav. is liable for each single one81For each single Sabbath..
מַה בֵין מֵזִיד בַּשַּׁבָּת וְשׁוֹגֵג בִּמְלָאכוֹת. מַה בֵין שׁוֹגֵג בַּשַּׁבָּת וּמֵזִיד בִּמְלָאכוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְלָמָּה מֵזִיד בַּשַּׁבָּת וְשׁוֹגֵג בִּמְלָאכוֹת חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. שֶׁאִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ לוֹ. מְלָאכְה הִיא זוֹ. הוּא פוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנָּה וְעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת. וְלָמָּה שׁוֹגֵג בַּשַּׁבָּת וּמֵזִיד בִּמְלָאכוֹת אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. שֶׁאִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ לוֹ. שַׁבָּת הוּא זוֹ. מִיָּד הוּא פוֹרֵשׁ. שָׁגַג בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה. רַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר. אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי זְעִירָא. וְלָאו כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן הוּא. אִילּוּ מֵזִיד בַּשַּׁבָּת וְשׁוֹגֵג בִּמְלָאכוֹת אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. מִפָּנֵי שֶׁנִּתּוֹסַף לוֹ שִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת שַׁבָּת אוֹבֵד שִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת. What is the difference between intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works or in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional about works82This now refers to Mishnah 1 in this Chapter, as R. Yose explains. In the Babli 70a the same explanation is given in the name of Rav Naḥman.? Rebbi Yose said, why intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works makes him liable for each single one? For if you tell him that this is [forbidden] work, he stops doing it and does other works. Why in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional about works makes him liable only once? For if you tell him that it is a Sabbath, he stops immediately. What if he is in error in both respects? Rav Hamnuna said, he is liable only once. Rebbi Zeˋira said to him, is that not a case a fortiori? If he is intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works, is he not liable for each single one? Because there was added for him the error regarding work on the Sabbath; the error about works is lost83Babli 70b disagrees since the final decision by Ravina follows Rav Hamnuna here (Sanhedrin 62a, Ševuot 19a,26a, Keritut 3b).?
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. קָצַר חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת בַּשּׁבָּת זוֹ בִּזְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וּבְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת. וְחֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת שַׁבָּת זוֹ בְשִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּבִזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת. שְׁגָגוֹת שֶׁבּוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָֽרְפוּ. אֵיפְשַׁר לוֹמַר. שַׁבָּתוֹת מְחַלְּקוֹת שַׁבָּתוֹת מִצָטָֽרְפוֹת. הֲרֵי תַמְחוּיִין חוֹלְקִין וְתַמְחוּיִין מִצָטָֽרְפִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ טַעַם תַּמְחוּי. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת בַּחוֹל וְאוֹת אַחַת בַּשַּׁבָּת. רִבִּי אֶלִיעֶזֶר מְחַייֵב חַטָּאת. וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי עֲזַרְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. תִּיפְתָּר בַּזָּדוֹן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְלֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן הוּא. מַה אִם הַזָּדוֹן שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק אֵינוֹ מַצְטָרֵף. שְׁגָגָה שֶׁהִיא חוֹלֶקֶת לֹא כָל־ שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלֹּא תִצְטָרֵף. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If one harvested half the volume of a dried fig on this Sabbath, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig on another Sabbath, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine84Since in all he harvested an amount which creates liability. In this version, there are two reasons which invite a negative answer; the actions happened on different days, and the circumstances of the errors are different.? Is it possible to say Sabbaths divide, Sabbaths combine85The second sentence in Mishnah 1 clearly states that for a person who knows the principle of Sabbath rest, even if he is not aware of the day, separate Sabbaths require separate sacrifices. Therefore the fact that the actions happened on different days should be enough to answer the question in the negative.? Do not trays divide and trays combine86This argument, also mentioned in the Babli 71a, refers to Mishnah Keritut 3:9where R. Joshua holds that somebody who illegally eats from the meat of one sacrifice prepared in five different dishes is liable for a separate purification sacrifice for every dish of which he ate the volume of an olive. On the other hand, if of two separate dishes he illegally ate half the volume of an olive each, he is liable for one sacrifice. This is a case where dishes both combine for liability and divide liabilities.? He answered, I do not know the reason for the tray. Is this not a baraita? If he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable87A later Mishnah will declare that writing on the Sabbath creates liability if one writes two letters. For R. Joshua writing one letter on the Sabbath never creates liability. For R. Eliezer the reason that two letters create liability is that they may form words. For him a letter which forms a word when added to a preexisting letter is word-forming and creates liability (Chapter 13, Note 000).. Rebbi Azariah said before Rebbi Mana, explain it by intent. He said to him, is this not an argument a fortiori? Since intent neither divides nor combines88Since intentional sin cannot be atoned for by a sacrifice it is irrelevant for creation of liabilities., error which does not divide a fortiori does not combine.
אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה. לֹא אָמַר כֵּן אֶלָּא. קָצַר חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת בַּשַּׁחֲרִית בִּזְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וּבְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת. וַחֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם בְּשִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּבִזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת. שְׁגָגוֹת שֶׁבּוֹ וּשְׁגָגוֹת שֶׁבּוֹ מָהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָֽרְפוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אַף עַל גַּו דְּלֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה דָא מִילְּתָא אָמַר דִּכְווָתֵיהּ. אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּדֵיעַת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וּבְהֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה. וַחֲצִי זַיִת בְּעֶלֶם הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וּבִידִיעַת הַטּוּמְאָה. הֶעֱלֵם שֶׁבּוֹ וְהֶעֱלֵם שֶׁבּוֹ מָהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָֽרְפוּ. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is not what he said but he harvested half the volume of a dried fig in the morning, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig in the evening, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine89This version, where all action happens on one and the same day, is reported in the Babli 71a, where also it is reported that R. Zeˋira holds that since the rules for purification sacrifices are different in both cases they cannot combine.? Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not address this, he said something similar. If one ate half the volume of an olive being aware of the Sanctuary but oblivious of impurity and half the volume of an olive being oblivious of the Sanctuary but aware of impurity; do the oblivions combine90Ševuot 2:1 Note 51.?
נִיחָא שַׁבָּת שֶׁבָּאוּ לָהּ יְמֵי הַחוֹל בֵּנְתַּיִים. גַּבֵּי נִידָּה מָה אִית לָךְ. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. תִּיפְתָּר בְּנִדָּה קְטַנָּה שֶׁבָּאוּ לָהּ יְמֵי הֶפְסֵק טַהֲרָה בֵּנְתַּיִים. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. כָּךְ שְׁאָלוֹ. בָּא עַל נִדָּה אַחַת חָמֵשׁ בְּעִילוֹת בְּעֶלֶם אֶחָד מָהוּ. חַייָב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּם אוֹ אַחַת עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִילּוּ קָצַר וְקָצַר בְּעֶלֶם אֶחָד. כְּלוּם הוּא חַייָב עַל כּוּלָּם אֶלָּא אַחַת. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָא. כֵּן. רִבִּי מָנָא מַקְשִׁי לָהּ. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי אָבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יֹסֵא בֶּן חֲנִינָא. כָּל־הָדָא הִילְכְתַא כְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִן אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אַף הָכָא לֹא יְהֵא חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. קִייַמְתִּיהָ כַּיי דָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָא. לֵית כֵּן. כְּרַבְּנִן דְּקַיסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי נִיסָא. כָּל־הָדָא הִילְכְתַא דְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הוּא. וְכָל־דְּיִפּוּק מִינָהּ הֲלָכָה כוּלָּהּ כְּרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. One understands Sabbath since weekdays come in the meantime. What may you say about the menstruating woman91This refers back to the Mishnah in Ketubot, in particular the last argument between R. Aqiba and R. Eliezer where R. Eliezer asserts that even with underage girls every forbidden sex act creates a new liability. It is agreed that every single Sabbath creates new liabilities since the weekdays in between create awareness of days that are not Sabbaths. Similarly one may argue that having sex with the same woman in different menstrual periods creates separate liabilities since while the male may be oblivious continuously, the woman certainly knows the differences between the periods and she is bound by the law as he is. But an underage girl is not obligated by any law; therefore intercourse with her during different periods in one period of oblivion should create only a single liability.? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, explain it about an underage menstruating woman where days of purity came in the meantime92Since we assert that a person who knows about the laws of the Sabbath but does not know which days are Sabbaths is liable separately for each Sabbath on which he worked, we also should assert that a man who knows the laws of niddah even if he does not know when his wife is impure is separately liable for intercourse in different periods which are separated by lengthy intervals of purity. Babli Keritut 17a.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, so did he ask him: If he came to one menstruating woman five times in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one? He answered him, he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is [not] so93As the text (Note 95) shows later, the text in brackets has to be added. One cannot translate “Rebbi Aḥa (4th generation) in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina (2nd) said, so did R. Mana (5th) ask”. R. Aḥa asserts that we do not accept R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon’s statement.. Rebbi Mana asked the following: Did not Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once23As will be stated in the next paragraph, all actions in one episode of oblivion trigger only one obligation of sacrifice.? Then here also94In the case of the man married to an underage girl each period creates only one liability. he should be liable only once. Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is not so95Cf. Note 93.. Like the rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Nisa: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, and all that is derived from it as all practice follows Rebbi Eliezer25The formulation in the Mishnah is not practice..