Sanhedrin
Masechet Sanhedrin is sponsored by Jina Davidovich in loving memory of her father and greatest chevruta, Vladimir Davidovich, Zev ben Yitzchak v’Chana, on his first yahrzeit.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Sanhedrin
Masechet Sanhedrin is sponsored by Jina Davidovich in loving memory of her father and greatest chevruta, Vladimir Davidovich, Zev ben Yitzchak v’Chana, on his first yahrzeit.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Sanhedrin 62
וְאִי לָא קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ – לָא כְּלוּם הוּא. אֶלָּא לָאו, מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה?
And if he did not accept that person upon himself as a god, but rather bowed to the statue in order to honor the person, e.g., the king, what he did is nothing. Rather, is the baraita not referring to a case where the High Priest unwittingly worshipped an idol due to love or due to fear of someone? This proves that this is also considered idol worship.
וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ: לָא, בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר.
And Rava could have said to you in response: No, the baraita is not referring to this case, but to a case where the High Priest says to himself that idol worship is permitted.
אוֹמֵר מוּתָּר, הַיְינוּ הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר!
The Gemara challenges: If the baraita is referring to a case where the High Priest says to himself that idol worship is permitted, this is a case of a lapse of awareness concerning the fundamental halakhot of idol worship, in which case the Rabbis concede that the High Priest is obligated to bring an offering. Therefore, what is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and that of the Sages?
בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר לִגְמָרֵי. הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר – קִיּוּם מִקְצָת וּבִיטּוּל מִקְצָת.
The Gemara answers: It is a case where he says to himself that idol worship is entirely permitted, whereas the case of a lapse of awareness in which the Rabbis concede to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is a case of upholding part of the prohibition and negating another part of it, i.e., a case where the High Priest recognizes that idol worship is prohibited but mistakenly assumes that certain idolatrous activities are permitted.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי זַכַּאי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זִיבַּח, וְקִיטֵּר, וְנִיסֵּךְ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.
§ Rabbi Zakkai taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one sacrificed an animal as an idolatrous offering, and burned incense as an idolatrous offering, and poured a libation to an idol, and bowed to an idol, all in the course of one lapse of awareness, forgetting that these actions were prohibited, he is obligated to bring only one sin-offering; he is not obligated to bring an offering for each and every act of idol worship.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹק תְּנִי לְבָרָא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go out and teach it outside; i.e., such a baraita must not be taught in the study hall, as the halakha is that one is obligated to bring an offering for each and every act of idol worship.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זַכַּאי מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי נָתָן, דְּתַנְיָא: הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
Rabbi Abba says: That which Rabbi Zakkai says is subject to a tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: The prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat was singled out from the general category of labor prohibited on Shabbat, and it is written explicitly in the Torah in the verse: “You shall not kindle fire in all your dwelling places on the day of Shabbat” (Exodus 35:3). This was done to teach that the prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat is unlike other prohibited labors, as it is an ordinary prohibition, for which one is not liable to be killed by stoning. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.
וְרַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת.
And Rabbi Natan says: Kindling a fire is like any other labor prohibited on Shabbat, and it was singled out to divide the prohibited labors of Shabbat. In other words, by stating one prohibited labor separately, the Torah teaches that each labor performed on Shabbat constitutes its own separate prohibition. Consequently, one who unwittingly violates several categories of labor is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every act of prohibited labor.
לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאת, הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה נָמֵי לְלָאו יָצָאת.
Rabbi Abba concludes: According to the one who says that of all the labors that are prohibited on Shabbat, kindling a fire on Shabbat was singled out to be mentioned in the Torah to teach that it is an ordinary prohibition, then bowing, in the category of idol worship, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse: “You shall not bow to them nor worship them” (Exodus 20:5), was also singled out to teach that it is an ordinary prohibition, which is not punishable by stoning.
לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַבְעָרָה לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת, הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה נָמֵי לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת.
Whereas, according to the one who says that kindling a fire was singled out to divide the prohibited labors of Shabbat, bowing was also singled out to divide the rites of idol worship, i.e., to teach that one who unwittingly performs several forms of idol worship is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every act of idol worship. Therefore, the baraita taught by Rabbi Zakkai, which states that such a person is obligated to bring only one sin-offering, is in accordance with the former opinion, i.e., the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: דִּילְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָתָם הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאת, דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת מֵ״אַחַת מֵהֵנָּה״?
Rav Yosef objects to this: Perhaps Rabbi Yosei says there, with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, that kindling a fire was singled out to teach that it is an ordinary prohibition only because he derives the division of labors on Shabbat, i.e., that one is obligated to bring an offering for each category of labor that he violated, from a different verse, namely: “From one of them” (Leviticus 4:2).
דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, ״וְעָשָׂה מֵאַחַת מֵהֵנָּה״ – פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן, פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.
As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says with regard to the verse: “If any one shall sin through error, in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and performs from one of them” (Leviticus 4:2), that there are times when one is liable to bring one sin-offering for all of his transgressions together, and there are times when one is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every transgression.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? דִּכְתִיב ״וְעָשָׂה מֵאַחַת מֵהֵנָּה״. ״אַחַת״, ״מֵאַחַת״. ״הֵנָּה״, ״מֵהֵנָּה״. אַחַת שֶׁהִיא הֵנָּה, וְהֵנָּה שֶׁהִיא אַחַת.
And Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? As it is written: “And performs from one of them,” and Rabbi Yosei interprets the verse as follows: The word “one” is qualified, as the verse states: “From one.” Likewise, the word “them” is qualified, as the verse states: “Of them.” Rabbi Yosei derives that there are cases of one transgression that, with regard to punishment, is them, i.e., many. And there are cases of them, i.e., several transgressions, that, with regard to punishment, are one.
״אַחַת״ – ״שִׁמְעוֹן״, ״מֵאַחַת״ – ״שֵׁם״ מִ״שִּׁמְעוֹן״.
Rabbi Yonatan delineates the implementation of this principle with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat: “One” complete violation is, e.g., a case where one wrote a whole word as he intended, such as the name Shimon. The term “from one” is referring to a case where one performed only part of a complete act of labor, e.g., he wrote only some of the letters of a word, such as shin mem, from the name Shimon. These two letters spell the word shem. In such a case, one is obligated to bring an offering for his transgression of writing two letters, shin and mem, even though he did not complete his intended act of writing the entire name of Shimon.
״הֵנָּה״ – אָבוֹת, ״מֵהֵנָּה״ – תּוֹלָדוֹת. ״אַחַת״ שֶׁהִיא ״הֵנָּה״: זְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת. ״הֵנָּה״ שֶׁהִיא ״אַחַת״: שִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת.
Rabbi Yonatan continues: “Them” is referring to the primary categories of labor. The term “of them” includes the subcategories of labor. The cases of one transgression that with regard to punishment is them, i.e., it is counted as many transgressions, are those involving intention, i.e., awareness, on the part of the transgressor that it was Shabbat and unawareness on the part of the transgressor that the acts of labor that he was performing are prohibited on Shabbat. One who transgresses in this way is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every category of labor that he engages in. The cases of them, several transgressions, that with regard to punishment are one are those involving unawareness on the part of the transgressor that it was Shabbat and intention, i.e., awareness, that the acts of labor that he was performing are prohibited on Shabbat. One who transgresses in this way is obligated to bring only one sin-offering.
אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת מִדּוּכְתָּא אַחֲרִיתִי, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת.
Rav Yosef concludes his objection to Rabbi Abba’s comparison between the status of the prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat and the status of the prohibition against bowing to an idol: The fact that Rabbi Yosei derives that kindling a fire on Shabbat is not punishable by death can be attributed to the fact that he derives from a different verse that one who violates several categories of labor is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every category of labor that he engages in. But here, with regard to idol worship, where he does not derive the division of labors, i.e., the division of categories of idol worship, from another place, perhaps everyone agrees that bowing was singled out to divide the prohibition of idol worship into different categories and bowing to an idol is punishable by death just like other forms of worship.
חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָמֵי תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מֵ״אַחַת מֵהֵנָּה״? ״אַחַת״ – זְבִיחָה, ״מֵאַחַת״ – סִימָן אֶחָד.
The Gemara asks according to both opinions, that of Rav Abba and that of Rav Yosef: Why not derive the division of labors with regard to idol worship, too, from the same verse from which Rabbi Yosei derives the division of labors with regard to Shabbat, namely: “From one of them”? Since this verse is not referring to the halakhot of Shabbat in particular, it can be interpreted with regard to idol worship in the same manner that it is interpreted with regard to Shabbat: The word “one” is referring to one complete, prohibited act of worship, such as sacrificing an animal as an idolatrous offering. The term “from one” is referring to one who performs part of an act of worship, e.g., one who did not finish slaughtering the offering, as he severed only one of the organs, i.e., the windpipe and gullet, that must be severed in ritual slaughter.
״הֵנָּה״ – אָבוֹת: זִיבּוּחַ, קִיטּוּר, נִיסּוּךְ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה. ״מֵהֵנָּה״ – תּוֹלָדוֹת: שָׁבַר מַקֵּל לְפָנֶיהָ.
The word “them” is referring to the primary categories of idol worship that are derived from the manner in which God is worshipped in the Temple, namely, sacrificing an animal as an offering, burning incense, pouring a libation, and bowing. The term “of them” is referring to the subcategories of idol worship, e.g., one who broke a stick before an idol that is worshipped in such a manner. Breaking a stick is a subcategory of sacrificing, as an animal’s neck is broken when it is slaughtered.
״אַחַת״ שֶׁהִיא ״הֵנָּה״: זְדוֹן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְשִׁגְגַת עֲבוֹדוֹת. ״הֵנָּה״ שֶׁהִיא ״אַחַת״: שִׁגְגַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּזְדוֹן עֲבוֹדוֹת.
The principle of one transgression that with regard to punishment is them, i.e., many, can be applied to a case of intention, i.e., awareness, on the part of the transgressor that idol worship is prohibited, and unawareness that the particular rites of worship that he was performing are prohibited. The principle of them, several transgressions, that with regard to punishment are one can be applied to a case of unawareness with regard to the prohibition of idol worship, i.e., the transgressor was unaware that idol worship is prohibited or that he was worshipping an idol, and intention, i.e., awareness, that the rites that he was performing are prohibited.
הַאי שִׁגְגַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי קָסָבַר בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת הוּא וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לוֹ, הֲרֵי לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם.
The Gemara responds to the suggestion that the division of categories of idol worship can be derived from this verse: What are the circumstances of unawareness with regard to idol worship? If the transgressor thought that a certain building was a synagogue and bowed to it, and he then realized that it is a house of idol worship, he is certainly exempt, as his heart was directed toward Heaven.
אֶלָּא דַּחֲזָא אִנְדְּרָטָא וּסְגֵיד לֵיהּ. אִי קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ – מֵזִיד הוּא, אִי לָא קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ – לָא כְּלוּם הוּא.
Rather, it must be a case where the transgressor saw a statue [andarta] of a person and bowed to it. This case must also be clarified: If he accepted that person upon himself as a god, he is an intentional transgressor and is liable to receive the death penalty, not to bring an offering. If he did not accept him upon himself as a god, but rather bowed to the statue in order to honor the person, what he did is nothing.
אֶלָּא מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה. הָנִיחָא לְאַבַּיֵּי, דְּאָמַר חַיָּיב; אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר פָּטוּר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
Rather, it is clearly a case where one worshipped an idol due to love or due to fear of someone, and he was unaware that this is prohibited. This works out well according to Abaye, who says that one who engages in idol worship due to love or fear is liable; accordingly, one who does so unwittingly must bring an offering. But according to Rava, who says that one who does so is exempt, what can be said?
אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר ״מוּתָּר״. תִּפְשׁוֹט דִּבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: הֶעְלֵם זֶה וָזֶה בְּיָדוֹ, מַהוּ?
Rather, according to Rava, unawareness with regard to idol worship can be explained as referring to a case where the transgressor says to himself that idol worship is permitted in general. If so, one can resolve the dilemma that Rava raised before Rav Naḥman: What is the halakha if one who violated Shabbat has a lapse of awareness of both this, i.e., that it was Shabbat, and that, i.e., that the particular labor that he performed is prohibited on Shabbat?
תִּיפְשׁוֹט, דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, וְתִפְשׁוֹט.
Rava’s dilemma had been left unresolved. If the phrase “and performs from one of them” is interpreted as referring to a case where one engages in idol worship thinking that it is permitted to do so, one can resolve that the transgressor is obligated to bring only one sin-offering for all of his acts of idol worship, according to this interpretation of the verse. The fact that Rava’s dilemma had been left unresolved therefore serves as a challenge to this interpretation. The Gemara refutes this challenge: This is not difficult; indeed, resolve the dilemma from here.
וּמִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לְהָנֵי קְרָאֵי בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה? דְּאִילּוּ הָכָא, כְּתִיב: בְּמָשִׁיחַ – פַּר, וּבְנָשִׂיא – שָׂעִיר, וּבְיָחִיד – כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה.
The Gemara asks: But can you interpret these verses, namely, “and performs from one of them,” with regard to idol worship at all? As here, in Leviticus, chapter 4, where this verse is written, it is written with regard to an anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, stating that if he sinned unwittingly he brings a bull as a sin-offering, and with regard to a king who sinned unwittingly it is stated that he brings a goat as a sin-offering, and with regard to an ordinary individual it is stated that he brings a female lamb or a female goat.
וְאִילּוּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה תְּנַן: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁבִּשְׂעִירָה כְּיָחִיד.
Whereas with regard to idol worship we learned in a baraita (61b): And they agree that a High Priest who unwittingly engages in idol worship brings a female goat as a sin-offering, as does an ordinary individual. Clearly, then, the halakhot of unwitting idol worship are derived from a different source, i.e., Numbers, chapter 15.
וְתוּ לָא מִידֵּי.
The Gemara concludes: And there is nothing more to be discussed. The suggestion to derive a division of categories with regard to idol worship from the phrase in the verse “and performs from one of them” is groundless, and Rav Yosef’s objection to Rabbi Abba’s opinion is justified.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר:
§ When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said:
הָכִי תְּנָא קַמֵּיהּ: חוֹמֶר בַּשַּׁבָּת מִשְּׁאָר מִצְוֹת, חוֹמֶר בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת מִבַּשַּׁבָּת. חוֹמֶר בַּשַּׁבָּת – שֶׁהַשַּׁבָּת עָשָׂה שְׁתַּיִם בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת. חוֹמֶר בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת – שֶׁבִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת שָׁגַג בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּין חַיָּיב, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּשַּׁבָּת.
This is the baraita that Rabbi Zakkai taught before Rabbi Yoḥanan: There is a stringency with regard to Shabbat vis-à-vis other mitzvot, and conversely, there is a stringency with regard to other mitzvot vis-à-vis Shabbat. There is a stringency with regard to Shabbat, as with regard to Shabbat, if one performed two distinct acts of labor in one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every act, which is not so with regard to other mitzvot. Conversely, there is a stringency with regard to other mitzvot, as with regard to other mitzvot, if one sinned unwittingly, without intent to perform the act of the transgression at all, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering, which is not so with regard to Shabbat.
אָמַר מָר: חוֹמֶר בַּשַּׁבָּת, שֶׁהַשַּׁבָּת עָשָׂה שְׁתַּיִם כּוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דַּעֲבַד קְצִירָה וּטְחִינָה, דִּכְוָותַהּ גַּבֵּי שְׁאָר מִצְוֹת – דַּאֲכַל חֵלֶב וָדָם. הָכָא תַּרְתֵּי מִיחַיַּיב, וְהָכָא תַּרְתֵּי מִיחַיַּיב!
The Gemara examines this baraita in detail. The Master said: There is a stringency with regard to Shabbat, as with regard to Shabbat, if one performed two distinct acts of labor in one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each act. What are the circumstances? If we say that he unwittingly performed acts of reaping and grinding on Shabbat, the corresponding situation with regard to other mitzvot is a case where one unwittingly consumed forbidden fat and blood. If so, there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot; here, one is obligated to bring two sin-offerings, and there, one is obligated to bring two sin-offerings.
אֶלָּא, גַּבֵּי שְׁאָר מִצְוֹת דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? דַּאֲכַל חֵלֶב וָחֵלֶב. דִּכְוָותַהּ גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת, דַּעֲבַד קְצִירָה וּקְצִירָה. הָכָא חֲדָא מִיחַיַּיב, וְהָכָא חֲדָא מִיחַיַּיב.
Rather, what are the circumstances with regard to other mitzvot where one is obligated to bring only one sin-offering? One is obligated in a case where he consumed forbidden fat and again consumed forbidden fat within one lapse of awareness. The corresponding situation with regard to Shabbat is a case where one performed an act of reaping and performed another act of reaping within one lapse of awareness. In that case too there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot; here, one is obligated to bring one sin-offering, and there, one is obligated to bring one sin-offering.
וְהַיְינוּ דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״פּוֹק תְּנִי לְבָרָא!״
The Gemara comments: And that is the reason that Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Zakkai: Go out and teach this baraita outside; it is not worthy of being taught in the study hall.
מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּילְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לְךָ דַּעֲבַד קְצִירָה וּטְחִינָה, ״מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת״ אֲתָאן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כִּדְרַבִּי אַמֵּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: זִיבַּח וְקִיטֵּר וְנִיסֵּךְ בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.
The Gemara asks: What is the difficulty that caused Rabbi Yoḥanan to disregard the baraita? Actually, perhaps I will say to you that the baraita is referring to a case where one performed acts of reaping and grinding on Shabbat, and when the baraita states: Which is not so with regard to other mitzvot, it is not referring to all mitzvot in general; rather, we arrive at the halakha of idol worship, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami. As Rabbi Ami says: If one sacrificed an animal as an idolatrous offering and burned incense and poured a libation, all in the course of one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring only one sin-offering.
לָא מִיתּוֹקְמָא לֵיהּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: חוֹמֶר בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת, שֶׁבִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת שָׁגַג בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּין – חַיָּיב.
The Gemara answers: The baraita cannot be interpreted as referring to idol worship, as it teaches in the last clause: There is a stringency with regard to other mitzvot, as with regard to other mitzvot, if one sinned unwittingly, without the intent to perform the act at all, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering.
שׁוֹגֵג בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּין בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּקָסָבַר בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת הוּא וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לוֹ, הֲרֵי לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם. אֶלָּא דַּחֲזָא אִנְדְּרָטָא וּסְגֵיד לֵיהּ. אִי קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ – מֵזִיד הוּא, וְאִי לָא קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ – לֹא כְּלוּם הִיא.
The Gemara explains why this cannot be referring to idol worship. What are the circumstances of one who unwittingly transgresses the prohibition of idol worship without the intent to perform the act? If he thought that a house of idol worship was a synagogue and bowed to it, he is certainly exempt, as his heart was directed toward Heaven. Rather, it must be a case where the transgressor saw the statue of a person and bowed to it. If he accepted that person upon himself as a god, he is an intentional transgressor and is liable to receive the death penalty, not to bring an offering. And if he did not accept him upon himself as a god, what he did is nothing.
אֶלָּא מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה. הָנִיחָא לְאַבַּיֵּי, דְּאָמַר חַיָּיב. אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר פָּטוּר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case where one worshipped an idol due to love or due to fear of a person, and he was unaware that this is prohibited. This works out well according to Abaye, who says that one who engages in idol worship due to love or fear is liable; accordingly, one who does so unwittingly must bring an offering. But according to Rava, who says that one who does so is exempt, what can be said?
אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּשַּׁבָּת דְּפָטוּר לִגְמָרֵי.
Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case where the transgressor says to himself that idol worship is permitted in general. Accordingly, the statement in the baraita: Which is not so in the halakhot of Shabbat, is referring to one who was under the impression that performing labor on Shabbat is permitted. One who performs prohibited labor under those circumstances is completely exempt, while one who transgresses under those circumstances with regard to idol worship is obligated to bring a sin-offering.
עַד כָּאן לָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן הֶעְלֵם זֶה וָזֶה – אֶלָּא אִי לְחַיּוֹבֵי חֲדָא, אִי לְחַיּוֹבֵי תַּרְתֵּי. פָּטוּר לִגְמָרֵי – לֵיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר.
This interpretation of the baraita is difficult, as Rava asked Rav Naḥman about the halakha in a case where one violated Shabbat during a lapse of awareness of both this, that it was Shabbat, and that the particular labor that he performed is prohibited on Shabbat. And Rava’s question was only with regard to whether to deem the person obligated to bring one sin-offering or whether to deem him obligated to bring two sin-offerings. There is no one who says that such a person is entirely exempt, in accordance with this interpretation of the baraita. Therefore, the baraita cannot be referring to idol worship.
מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: רֵישָׁא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְסֵיפָא בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת.
The Gemara challenges this conclusion: What is the difficulty in interpreting the baraita as referring to idol worship? Actually, perhaps I will say to you that the first clause of the baraita is referring to the contrast between Shabbat and idol worship, and the last clause is referring to the contrast between Shabbat and other mitzvot.
וְשָׁגַג בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּין, דְּקָסָבַר רוֹק הוּא וּבְלָעוֹ. מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בַּשַּׁבָּת, דְּפָטוּר. שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּין לְהַגְבִּיהַּ אֶת הַתָּלוּשׁ וְחָתַךְ אֶת הַמְחוּבָּר – פָּטוּר.
And the halakha of one who transgressed other mitzvot unwittingly, without intent to perform the act, is referring to, e.g., a case where one has forbidden fat in his mouth and thinks it is spittle, and he swallows it. In that case he must bring an offering for his transgression, which is not so with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, where in a parallel case one would be exempt. As, for example, one who intended to lift a plant that was detached from the ground and mistakenly severed a plant still attached to the ground is exempt. One is not liable for an unintentional act of labor on Shabbat.
וְכִדְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: הַמִּתְעַסֵּק בַּחֲלָבִים וּבַעֲרָיוֹת – חַיָּיב, שֶׁכֵּן נֶהֱנֶה; הַמִּתְעַסֵּק בְּשַׁבָּת – פָּטוּר, מְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.
And this distinction is in accordance with the statement that Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says, as he says: One who acts unawares with forbidden fats or with those with whom sexual relations are forbidden, i.e., one who accidentally consumed forbidden fat or engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse, without intending to perform the act at all (see Yevamot 54a), is obligated to bring a sin-offering, since he derived pleasure from the transgression. But one who acts unawares on Shabbat, performing forbidden labor, is exempt, as the Torah prohibits only planned labor.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּלָא מוֹקֵים מַתְנִיתָא רֵישָׁא בְּחַד טַעְמָא וְסֵיפָא בְּחַד טַעְמָא.
Since the baraita can be explained in this manner, the Gemara explains why Rabbi Yoḥanan rejected it anyway: Rabbi Yoḥanan conforms to his standard line of reasoning, in that he does not interpret the first clause of a baraita with one explanation and the last clause of the same baraita with one other explanation. Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept the premise that a baraita can be referring to a different matter in each clause unless it states so explicitly.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאן דִּמְתַרְגֵּם לִי חָבִית אַלִּיבָּא דְּחַד תַּנָּא, מוֹבֵילְנָא מָאנֵיהּ בָּתְרֵיהּ לְבֵי מַסּוּתָא.
As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whoever explains to me the mishna concerning a barrel (Bava Metzia 40b) in accordance with the opinion of one tanna, I will carry his clothes after him to the bathhouse, i.e., I will attend him as a servant, as although that mishna can be explained by dividing it into two different opinions, I do not accept that type of explanation. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept the suggestion that the first clause of the baraita here is referring to idol worship and the last clause is referring to other mitzvot.
גּוּפָא,
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself, namely, whether one who engages in several forms of idol worship in the same lapse of awareness brings more than one sin-offering.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Sanhedrin 62: Violations while Unaware: Shabbat and Idolatry
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
Minnesota, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
See video
Raanana, Israel
Sanhedrin 62
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧΦΌΦ· β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ?
And if he did not accept that person upon himself as a god, but rather bowed to the statue in order to honor the person, e.g., the king, what he did is nothing. Rather, is the baraita not referring to a case where the High Priest unwittingly worshipped an idol due to love or due to fear of someone? This proves that this is also considered idol worship.
ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨.
And Rava could have said to you in response: No, the baraita is not referring to this case, but to a case where the High Priest says to himself that idol worship is permitted.
ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨!
The Gemara challenges: If the baraita is referring to a case where the High Priest says to himself that idol worship is permitted, this is a case of a lapse of awareness concerning the fundamental halakhot of idol worship, in which case the Rabbis concede that the High Priest is obligated to bring an offering. Therefore, what is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and that of the Sages?
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ. ΧΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ β Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧͺ.
The Gemara answers: It is a case where he says to himself that idol worship is entirely permitted, whereas the case of a lapse of awareness in which the Rabbis concede to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is a case of upholding part of the prohibition and negating another part of it, i.e., a case where the High Priest recognizes that idol worship is prohibited but mistakenly assumes that certain idolatrous activities are permitted.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ, ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ°, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ.
Β§ Rabbi Zakkai taught the following baraita before Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan: If one sacrificed an animal as an idolatrous offering, and burned incense as an idolatrous offering, and poured a libation to an idol, and bowed to an idol, all in the course of one lapse of awareness, forgetting that these actions were prohibited, he is obligated to bring only one sin-offering; he is not obligated to bring an offering for each and every act of idol worship.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said to him: Go out and teach it outside; i.e., such a baraita must not be taught in the study hall, as the halakha is that one is obligated to bring an offering for each and every act of idol worship.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ§ΦΆΧͺ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ.
Rabbi Abba says: That which Rabbi Zakkai says is subject to a tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: The prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat was singled out from the general category of labor prohibited on Shabbat, and it is written explicitly in the Torah in the verse: βYou shall not kindle fire in all your dwelling places on the day of Shabbatβ (Exodus 35:3). This was done to teach that the prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat is unlike other prohibited labors, as it is an ordinary prohibition, for which one is not liable to be killed by stoning. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ§ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧΧͺ.
And Rabbi Natan says: Kindling a fire is like any other labor prohibited on Shabbat, and it was singled out to divide the prohibited labors of Shabbat. In other words, by stating one prohibited labor separately, the Torah teaches that each labor performed on Shabbat constitutes its own separate prohibition. Consequently, one who unwittingly violates several categories of labor is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every act of prohibited labor.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧΧͺ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧΧͺ.
Rabbi Abba concludes: According to the one who says that of all the labors that are prohibited on Shabbat, kindling a fire on Shabbat was singled out to be mentioned in the Torah to teach that it is an ordinary prohibition, then bowing, in the category of idol worship, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse: βYou shall not bow to them nor worship themβ (Exodus 20:5), was also singled out to teach that it is an ordinary prohibition, which is not punishable by stoning.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ§ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧΧͺ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ§ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧΧͺ.
Whereas, according to the one who says that kindling a fire was singled out to divide the prohibited labors of Shabbat, bowing was also singled out to divide the rites of idol worship, i.e., to teach that one who unwittingly performs several forms of idol worship is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every act of idol worship. Therefore, the baraita taught by Rabbi Zakkai, which states that such a person is obligated to bring only one sin-offering, is in accordance with the former opinion, i.e., the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ΅ΧΧ£ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£: ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΅Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄?
Rav Yosef objects to this: Perhaps Rabbi Yosei says there, with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, that kindling a fire was singled out to teach that it is an ordinary prohibition only because he derives the division of labors on Shabbat, i.e., that one is obligated to bring an offering for each category of labor that he violated, from a different verse, namely: βFrom one of themβ (Leviticus 4:2).
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ.
As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says with regard to the verse: βIf any one shall sin through error, in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and performs from one of themβ (Leviticus 4:2), that there are times when one is liable to bring one sin-offering for all of his transgressions together, and there are times when one is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every transgression.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ? ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄. Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄, Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄. Χ΄ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄, Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄. ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ.
And Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? As it is written: βAnd performs from one of them,β and Rabbi Yosei interprets the verse as follows: The word βoneβ is qualified, as the verse states: βFrom one.β Likewise, the word βthemβ is qualified, as the verse states: βOf them.β Rabbi Yosei derives that there are cases of one transgression that, with regard to punishment, is them, i.e., many. And there are cases of them, i.e., several transgressions, that, with regard to punishment, are one.
Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄ β Χ΄Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΧ΄, Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄ β Χ΄Χ©ΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄ ΧΦ΄Χ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΧ΄.
Rabbi Yonatan delineates the implementation of this principle with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat: βOneβ complete violation is, e.g., a case where one wrote a whole word as he intended, such as the name Shimon. The term βfrom oneβ is referring to a case where one performed only part of a complete act of labor, e.g., he wrote only some of the letters of a word, such as shin mem, from the name Shimon. These two letters spell the word shem. In such a case, one is obligated to bring an offering for his transgression of writing two letters, shin and mem, even though he did not complete his intended act of writing the entire name of Shimon.
Χ΄ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ, Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ. Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄: ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ. Χ΄ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄: Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ.
Rabbi Yonatan continues: βThemβ is referring to the primary categories of labor. The term βof themβ includes the subcategories of labor. The cases of one transgression that with regard to punishment is them, i.e., it is counted as many transgressions, are those involving intention, i.e., awareness, on the part of the transgressor that it was Shabbat and unawareness on the part of the transgressor that the acts of labor that he was performing are prohibited on Shabbat. One who transgresses in this way is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every category of labor that he engages in. The cases of them, several transgressions, that with regard to punishment are one are those involving unawareness on the part of the transgressor that it was Shabbat and intention, i.e., awareness, that the acts of labor that he was performing are prohibited on Shabbat. One who transgresses in this way is obligated to bring only one sin-offering.
ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ§ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧΧͺ.
Rav Yosef concludes his objection to Rabbi Abbaβs comparison between the status of the prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat and the status of the prohibition against bowing to an idol: The fact that Rabbi Yosei derives that kindling a fire on Shabbat is not punishable by death can be attributed to the fact that he derives from a different verse that one who violates several categories of labor is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every category of labor that he engages in. But here, with regard to idol worship, where he does not derive the division of labors, i.e., the division of categories of idol worship, from another place, perhaps everyone agrees that bowing was singled out to divide the prohibition of idol worship into different categories and bowing to an idol is punishable by death just like other forms of worship.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄? Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄ β Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara asks according to both opinions, that of Rav Abba and that of Rav Yosef: Why not derive the division of labors with regard to idol worship, too, from the same verse from which Rabbi Yosei derives the division of labors with regard to Shabbat, namely: βFrom one of themβ? Since this verse is not referring to the halakhot of Shabbat in particular, it can be interpreted with regard to idol worship in the same manner that it is interpreted with regard to Shabbat: The word βoneβ is referring to one complete, prohibited act of worship, such as sacrificing an animal as an idolatrous offering. The term βfrom oneβ is referring to one who performs part of an act of worship, e.g., one who did not finish slaughtering the offering, as he severed only one of the organs, i.e., the windpipe and gullet, that must be severed in ritual slaughter.
Χ΄ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ·, Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨, Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ: Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΆΧΧΦΈ.
The word βthemβ is referring to the primary categories of idol worship that are derived from the manner in which God is worshipped in the Temple, namely, sacrificing an animal as an offering, burning incense, pouring a libation, and bowing. The term βof themβ is referring to the subcategories of idol worship, e.g., one who broke a stick before an idol that is worshipped in such a manner. Breaking a stick is a subcategory of sacrificing, as an animalβs neck is broken when it is slaughtered.
Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄: ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΧΦΉΧͺ. Χ΄ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄: Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΧΦΉΧͺ.
The principle of one transgression that with regard to punishment is them, i.e., many, can be applied to a case of intention, i.e., awareness, on the part of the transgressor that idol worship is prohibited, and unawareness that the particular rites of worship that he was performing are prohibited. The principle of them, several transgressions, that with regard to punishment are one can be applied to a case of unawareness with regard to the prohibition of idol worship, i.e., the transgressor was unaware that idol worship is prohibited or that he was worshipping an idol, and intention, i.e., awareness, that the rites that he was performing are prohibited.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧͺ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ.
The Gemara responds to the suggestion that the division of categories of idol worship can be derived from this verse: What are the circumstances of unawareness with regard to idol worship? If the transgressor thought that a certain building was a synagogue and bowed to it, and he then realized that it is a house of idol worship, he is certainly exempt, as his heart was directed toward Heaven.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ΄Χ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ.
Rather, it must be a case where the transgressor saw a statue [andarta] of a person and bowed to it. This case must also be clarified: If he accepted that person upon himself as a god, he is an intentional transgressor and is liable to receive the death penalty, not to bring an offering. If he did not accept him upon himself as a god, but rather bowed to the statue in order to honor the person, what he did is nothing.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ; ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨?
Rather, it is clearly a case where one worshipped an idol due to love or due to fear of someone, and he was unaware that this is prohibited. This works out well according to Abaye, who says that one who engages in idol worship due to love or fear is liable; accordingly, one who does so unwittingly must bring an offering. But according to Rava, who says that one who does so is exempt, what can be said?
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨Χ΄. ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ?
Rather, according to Rava, unawareness with regard to idol worship can be explained as referring to a case where the transgressor says to himself that idol worship is permitted in general. If so, one can resolve the dilemma that Rava raised before Rav NaαΈ₯man: What is the halakha if one who violated Shabbat has a lapse of awareness of both this, i.e., that it was Shabbat, and that, i.e., that the particular labor that he performed is prohibited on Shabbat?
ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ.
Ravaβs dilemma had been left unresolved. If the phrase βand performs from one of themβ is interpreted as referring to a case where one engages in idol worship thinking that it is permitted to do so, one can resolve that the transgressor is obligated to bring only one sin-offering for all of his acts of idol worship, according to this interpretation of the verse. The fact that Ravaβs dilemma had been left unresolved therefore serves as a challenge to this interpretation. The Gemara refutes this challenge: This is not difficult; indeed, resolve the dilemma from here.
ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ? ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· β Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β Χ©ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara asks: But can you interpret these verses, namely, βand performs from one of them,β with regard to idol worship at all? As here, in Leviticus, chapter 4, where this verse is written, it is written with regard to an anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, stating that if he sinned unwittingly he brings a bull as a sin-offering, and with regard to a king who sinned unwittingly it is stated that he brings a goat as a sin-offering, and with regard to an ordinary individual it is stated that he brings a female lamb or a female goat.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
Whereas with regard to idol worship we learned in a baraita (61b): And they agree that a High Priest who unwittingly engages in idol worship brings a female goat as a sin-offering, as does an ordinary individual. Clearly, then, the halakhot of unwitting idol worship are derived from a different source, i.e., Numbers, chapter 15.
ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ.
The Gemara concludes: And there is nothing more to be discussed. The suggestion to derive a division of categories with regard to idol worship from the phrase in the verse βand performs from one of themβ is groundless, and Rav Yosefβs objection to Rabbi Abbaβs opinion is justified.
ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨:
Β§ When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said:
ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ. ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ, ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ. ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ.
This is the baraita that Rabbi Zakkai taught before Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan: There is a stringency with regard to Shabbat vis-Γ -vis other mitzvot, and conversely, there is a stringency with regard to other mitzvot vis-Γ -vis Shabbat. There is a stringency with regard to Shabbat, as with regard to Shabbat, if one performed two distinct acts of labor in one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every act, which is not so with regard to other mitzvot. Conversely, there is a stringency with regard to other mitzvot, as with regard to other mitzvot, if one sinned unwittingly, without intent to perform the act of the transgression at all, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering, which is not so with regard to Shabbat.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ Χ§Φ°Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧͺΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ!
The Gemara examines this baraita in detail. The Master said: There is a stringency with regard to Shabbat, as with regard to Shabbat, if one performed two distinct acts of labor in one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each act. What are the circumstances? If we say that he unwittingly performed acts of reaping and grinding on Shabbat, the corresponding situation with regard to other mitzvot is a case where one unwittingly consumed forbidden fat and blood. If so, there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot; here, one is obligated to bring two sin-offerings, and there, one is obligated to bring two sin-offerings.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ. ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧͺΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ Χ§Φ°Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ.
Rather, what are the circumstances with regard to other mitzvot where one is obligated to bring only one sin-offering? One is obligated in a case where he consumed forbidden fat and again consumed forbidden fat within one lapse of awareness. The corresponding situation with regard to Shabbat is a case where one performed an act of reaping and performed another act of reaping within one lapse of awareness. In that case too there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot; here, one is obligated to bring one sin-offering, and there, one is obligated to bring one sin-offering.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ!Χ΄
The Gemara comments: And that is the reason that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said to Rabbi Zakkai: Go out and teach this baraita outside; it is not worthy of being taught in the study hall.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ Χ§Φ°Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ΄ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺΧ΄ ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ.
The Gemara asks: What is the difficulty that caused Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan to disregard the baraita? Actually, perhaps I will say to you that the baraita is referring to a case where one performed acts of reaping and grinding on Shabbat, and when the baraita states: Which is not so with regard to other mitzvot, it is not referring to all mitzvot in general; rather, we arrive at the halakha of idol worship, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami. As Rabbi Ami says: If one sacrificed an animal as an idolatrous offering and burned incense and poured a libation, all in the course of one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring only one sin-offering.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ.
The Gemara answers: The baraita cannot be interpreted as referring to idol worship, as it teaches in the last clause: There is a stringency with regard to other mitzvot, as with regard to other mitzvot, if one sinned unwittingly, without the intent to perform the act at all, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering.
Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧͺ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ΄Χ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧΦΌΦ· β ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara explains why this cannot be referring to idol worship. What are the circumstances of one who unwittingly transgresses the prohibition of idol worship without the intent to perform the act? If he thought that a house of idol worship was a synagogue and bowed to it, he is certainly exempt, as his heart was directed toward Heaven. Rather, it must be a case where the transgressor saw the statue of a person and bowed to it. If he accepted that person upon himself as a god, he is an intentional transgressor and is liable to receive the death penalty, not to bring an offering. And if he did not accept him upon himself as a god, what he did is nothing.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨?
Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case where one worshipped an idol due to love or due to fear of a person, and he was unaware that this is prohibited. This works out well according to Abaye, who says that one who engages in idol worship due to love or fear is liable; accordingly, one who does so unwittingly must bring an offering. But according to Rava, who says that one who does so is exempt, what can be said?
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ.
Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case where the transgressor says to himself that idol worship is permitted in general. Accordingly, the statement in the baraita: Which is not so in the halakhot of Shabbat, is referring to one who was under the impression that performing labor on Shabbat is permitted. One who performs prohibited labor under those circumstances is completely exempt, while one who transgresses under those circumstances with regard to idol worship is obligated to bring a sin-offering.
Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ. Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨.
This interpretation of the baraita is difficult, as Rava asked Rav NaαΈ₯man about the halakha in a case where one violated Shabbat during a lapse of awareness of both this, that it was Shabbat, and that the particular labor that he performed is prohibited on Shabbat. And Ravaβs question was only with regard to whether to deem the person obligated to bring one sin-offering or whether to deem him obligated to bring two sin-offerings. There is no one who says that such a person is entirely exempt, in accordance with this interpretation of the baraita. Therefore, the baraita cannot be referring to idol worship.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ.
The Gemara challenges this conclusion: What is the difficulty in interpreting the baraita as referring to idol worship? Actually, perhaps I will say to you that the first clause of the baraita is referring to the contrast between Shabbat and idol worship, and the last clause is referring to the contrast between Shabbat and other mitzvot.
ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉ. ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨. Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ· ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·ΧΦ° ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨.
And the halakha of one who transgressed other mitzvot unwittingly, without intent to perform the act, is referring to, e.g., a case where one has forbidden fat in his mouth and thinks it is spittle, and he swallows it. In that case he must bring an offering for his transgression, which is not so with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, where in a parallel case one would be exempt. As, for example, one who intended to lift a plant that was detached from the ground and mistakenly severed a plant still attached to the ground is exempt. One is not liable for an unintentional act of labor on Shabbat.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ§ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±Χ ΦΆΧ; ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ§ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
And this distinction is in accordance with the statement that Rav NaαΈ₯man says that Shmuel says, as he says: One who acts unawares with forbidden fats or with those with whom sexual relations are forbidden, i.e., one who accidentally consumed forbidden fat or engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse, without intending to perform the act at all (see Yevamot 54a), is obligated to bring a sin-offering, since he derived pleasure from the transgression. But one who acts unawares on Shabbat, performing forbidden labor, is exempt, as the Torah prohibits only planned labor.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ.
Since the baraita can be explained in this manner, the Gemara explains why Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan rejected it anyway: Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan conforms to his standard line of reasoning, in that he does not interpret the first clause of a baraita with one explanation and the last clause of the same baraita with one other explanation. Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan does not accept the premise that a baraita can be referring to a different matter in each clause unless it states so explicitly.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ.
As Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: Whoever explains to me the mishna concerning a barrel (Bava Metzia 40b) in accordance with the opinion of one tanna, I will carry his clothes after him to the bathhouse, i.e., I will attend him as a servant, as although that mishna can be explained by dividing it into two different opinions, I do not accept that type of explanation. Therefore, Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan does not accept the suggestion that the first clause of the baraita here is referring to idol worship and the last clause is referring to other mitzvot.
ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ,
Β§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself, namely, whether one who engages in several forms of idol worship in the same lapse of awareness brings more than one sin-offering.
