Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 14, 2020 | 讻壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Shabbat 69

Today’s shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora.

What are the different approaches to one who sins unwittingly – what about the prohibition was forgotten? Munbaz holds that one knew it was forbidden and knew the punishment for doing it on purpose but didn’t know that one is obligated to bring a sacrifice for performing it unwittingly. The rabbis disagree and Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about whether one was unwitting about the prohibition or about the punishment for the prohibition (karet). Abaye compares two other cases where one is also obligated if one did it unwittingly but there is no punishment of karet if it was performed intentionally. He says that all agree in those cases (swearing falsely and a non priest who ate truma). Who is all – the rabbis and Munbaz or Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. Rava disagrees with Abaye in the case of truma. If one is in the desert and lost track of days, how does one keep Shabbat?

讜讻讬 转砖讙讜 讜诇讗 转注砖讜 讗转 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讛讗诇讛 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛谞驻砖 讗砖专 转注砖讛 讘讬讚 专诪讛 讛讜拽砖讜 讻讜诇诐 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转

鈥淎nd if you err, and do not perform all these commandments that God spoke to Moses鈥 (Numbers 15:22). The Sages understood this verse as referring specifically to the laws of idolatry. And it is written: 鈥淎nd the person who acts with a high hand, he blasphemes God and that soul shall be cut off from the midst of his people鈥 (Numbers 15:30), from which we learn that all the mitzvot are derived from this juxtaposition to idolatry. Just as there, with regard to idolatry, the reference is to a matter which, for its intentional violation, one is liable to be punished with karet, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd that soul shall be cut off,鈥 and for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering; so too, any matter that for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet, for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.

讜讗诇讗 诪讜谞讘讝 砖讙讙讛 讘诪讗讬 讻讙讜谉 砖砖讙讙 讘拽专讘谉 讜专讘谞谉 砖讙讙转 拽专讘谉 诇讗 砖诪讛 砖讙讙讛

The Gemara asks: However, according to Munbaz, who holds that included in the category of an unwitting sinner is one who at the time of action was aware that it was prohibited; if he were fully aware, in what sense was his action unwitting? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where he was unwitting with regard to the sacrifice. He was aware that he was committing a transgression for which one is liable to be punished with karet when performed intentionally; however, he was unaware that he would be liable to bring a sin-offering if he performed the transgression unwittingly. Since he was not aware of all punishments and forms of atonement associated with that transgression, he is considered an unwitting sinner and is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis who disagree with Munbaz hold? They hold: Unwitting with regard to a sacrifice is not considered unwitting.

讜专讘谞谉 砖讙讙讛 讘诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讙讙 讘讻专转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讝讬讚 讘诇讗讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 注讚 砖讬砖讙讜讙 讘诇讗讜 讜讻专转 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 (讘砖讙讙讛) 讜讗砖诐 注讚 砖讬砖讙讜讙 讘诇讗讜 讜讻专转 砖讘讛

The Gemara asks: And in the opinion of the Rabbis, lack of awareness with regard to what aspects of the prohibition renders the action unwitting? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is an unwitting transgression since he was unwitting with regard to the fact that the punishment for his transgression is karet, even though he was aware that his action was in violation of a Torah prohibition, and he performed the transgression intentionally. And Reish Lakish said that according to the Rabbis it is not considered unwitting until he was unwitting with regard to both the prohibition and karet, i.e., he was unaware that his action was prohibited by Torah law. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? The verse said: 鈥淎nd if one soul shall sin by mistake from the common people, by performing one of God鈥檚 commandments that may not be done, and he becomes guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:27), indicating that it is not considered unwitting until he was unwitting with regard to the prohibition and its concomitant karet. The verse indicates that the individual was unaware that he violated 鈥渙ne of the commandments that may not be done,鈥 i.e., that there is a Torah prohibition with regard to that action.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇诪砖讜诪讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗砖专 诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 (讘砖讙讙讛) 讜讗砖诐 讛砖讘 诪讬讚讬注转讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 诇讗 砖讘 诪讬讚讬注转讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜:

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yo岣nan do with that verse cited as proof by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? The Gemara answers: He needs it for that which was taught in a baraita: The phrase: 鈥淔rom the common people鈥 (Leviticus 4:27) teaches that only some sinners, not all, bring sacrifices for their unwitting sins. It comes to exclude an apostate. When an apostate sins unwittingly, he is under no obligation to bring a sin-offering even after he repents. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: This halakha is derived from the phrase in that verse: 鈥淭hat may not be done, and he becomes guilty.鈥 One who repents due to his awareness, i.e., one who repents as soon as he becomes aware that he performed a transgression, brings a sacrifice for his unwitting transgression. However, one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned, e.g., an apostate who continues to sin even after he becomes aware that he committed a transgression, does not bring an offering for his unwitting action. Rabbi Yo岣nan understood the verse in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

转谞谉 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪谞讬谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇谉 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讝讚讜谉 砖讘转 讜砖讙讙转 诪诇讗讻讜转

The Gemara cites proof from what we learned in a mishna: The number of primary categories of prohibited labors on Shabbat is forty-less-one, which the mishna proceeds to list. And we discussed this mishna: Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? Isn鈥檛 merely listing the prohibited labors sufficient? And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The tally was included to teach that if he performed all of the prohibited labors in the course of one lapse of awareness during which he was unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable for each and every one. Therefore, the mishna indicated that one could conceivably be liable to bring thirty-nine sin-offerings. Under what circumstances can you find a case where one would be liable for unwittingly violating all thirty-nine labors? It must be in a case where with regard to Shabbat his actions were intentional, as he was aware that it was Shabbat; and with regard to the prohibited labors his actions were unwitting, as he was unaware that these labors are prohibited on Shabbat.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讙讙 讘讻专转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讝讬讚 讘诇讗讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讬讚注 诇讛 诇砖讘转 讘诇讗讜 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬砖讙讜讙 讘诇讗讜 讜讘讻专转 讚讬讚注 诇讬讛 诇砖讘转 讘诪讗讬 讚讬讚注讛 讘转讞讜诪讬谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: Once he was unwitting with regard to the fact that the punishment for his transgression is karet, even though he was aware that his action was in violation of a Torah prohibition, and he performed the transgression intentionally, he is considered to have sinned unwittingly, you find that possibility in a case where he was aware that performing labor on Shabbat involves violation of a Torah prohibition, but he was unaware that the punishment for violating that prohibition is karet. However, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said: It is not considered unwitting until he was unwitting with regard to both the prohibition and karet, the result is that he is completely unaware of all the prohibited labors of Shabbat. If so, when Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the case where one would be liable to bring thirty-nine sin-offerings is one where with regard to Shabbat, his actions were intentional as he was aware that it was Shabbat, the question arises: With regard to what aspect of Shabbat was he aware? If he was completely unaware of all the labors prohibited on Shabbat, in what sense were his actions intentional with regard to Shabbat? The Gemara answers: He was aware of the halakhot of the prohibition of Shabbat boundaries, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Akiva, the prohibition to go beyond a certain distance outside the city limits on Shabbat is by Torah law and not merely a rabbinic decree.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讙讙 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 讝讛讜 砖讜讙讙 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讛讝讬讚 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讝讬讚 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 砖讙讙 讘砖讘转 讜讛讝讬讚 讘诪诇讗讻讜转 讗讜 砖砖讙讙 讘诪诇讗讻讜转 讜讛讝讬讚 讘砖讘转 讗讜 砖讗诪专 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖诪诇讗讻讛 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 讗讜 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 讻诪讗谉 讻诪讜谞讘讝

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this baraita? As the Sages taught: If one acted unwittingly with regard to both this, the fact that it is Shabbat, and that, the specific prohibited labors, that is the case of unwitting transgression stated in the Torah. If one acted intentionally with regard to both this and that, that is the case of intentional transgression stated in the Torah. If one acted unwittingly with regard to Shabbat and intentionally with regard to the labors, i.e., he forgot that it was Shabbat, but he was aware that those labors are prohibited when it is Shabbat; or if one acted unwittingly with regard to the labors and intentionally with regard to Shabbat, i.e., he was unaware that these labors are prohibited, but he was aware that labor is prohibited on Shabbat, or, even if he said: I know that this labor is prohibited on Shabbat; however, I do not know whether or not one is liable to bring a sacrifice for its performance, he is liable to bring a sin-offering like anyone who sins unwittingly. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Munbaz, who holds that one is considered an unwitting sinner even in a case where he was unwitting only with regard to the sacrifice.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 注讚 砖讬砖讙讜讙 讘诇讗讜 砖讘讛 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 诪讗谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讻专转 诇讗

Abaye said: Everyone agrees with regard to an oath on a statement, a case where one swore to prohibit or to obligate himself to perform an action, that the halakha is as follows: If he violates his oath he is only liable to bring an offering if he was unwitting with regard to its prohibition, i.e., he was unaware that it is prohibited by Torah law to violate an oath. The Gemara asks: To whose opinion is Abaye referring in the phrase: Everyone agrees? Certainly, it is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis in their dispute with Munbaz. Even though Rabbi Yo岣nan generally holds that the fact that one is unwitting with regard to karet is sufficient to render his action unwitting, the case of an oath is different. The Gemara asks: In the case of an oath, it is obvious that he would agree. When Rabbi Yo岣nan says that one need not be unwitting with regard to the prohibition, it is in a case where there is a prohibition punishable by karet; however, here, where there is no punishment of karet, Rabbi Yo岣nan would not say so. Obviously, he agrees that one must be unwitting with regard to the prohibition. There appears to be nothing new in Abaye鈥檚 statement.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讬讘 拽专讘谉 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 诇讗讜 讚诪讬讬转讬 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 讜讛讻讗 诪讬讬转讬 讻讬 砖讙讙 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘

The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say the following: Since the obligation to bring an offering in the case of the oath is a novel halakha, as throughout the whole Torah in its entirety we do not find a prohibition for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring an offering and for whose intentional violation is not punishable by karet; and here, one is liable to bring an offering for its unwitting violation, I might have said that if he was unwitting, i.e., unaware that he would be obligated, with regard to the offering, let him be liable also according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Munbaz.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讙讙转 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬 诇砖注讘专 砖讗诐 讗诪专 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖砖讘讜注讛 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 讗讜 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诪谞讬 诪讜谞讘讝 讛讬讗

Therefore, Abaye teaches us that this is not so. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: What is an unwitting violation of an oath on a statement relating to the past? What is an example of one who unwittingly swore falsely with regard to an incident that occurred in the past? It cannot be a case where he forgot the incident, as in that case he is exempt from bringing an offering. It is a case where if he said: I know that taking this false oath is prohibited, but I do not know whether or not one is liable to bring an offering for swearing falsely, he is liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression. Apparently, with regard to an oath on a statement, unwitting with regard to the sacrifice renders the action unwitting. The Gemara rejects this: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Munbaz. In his opinion, one who commits a transgression while unaware whether or not one is liable to bring an offering if he performs that transgression unwittingly is considered to have performed the transgression unwittingly.

(诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讜谞讘讝 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讚诇讗讜 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讗诪专 砖讙讙转 拽专讘谉 砖诪讛 砖讙讙讛 讛讻讗 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬 转讬讜讘转讗):

There is another version of the discussion of Abaye鈥檚 statement where, after quoting the halakha with regard to an oath on a statement, the question was raised: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Munbaz, that is obvious: Now, if throughout the entire Torah where there is no novelty in the obligation to bring an offering, he said that unwitting with regard to an offering is considered unwitting; here, where there is a novelty and the offering in the case of an oath on a statement is more significant than other sin-offerings, certainly unwitting with regard to the offering should be considered unwitting. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞讜诪砖 注讚 砖讬砖讙讜讙 讘诇讗讜 砖讘讛 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 诪讗谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻专转 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讻专转 诇讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讬转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专转 注讜诪讚转 讜讻讬 砖讙讙 讘诪讬转讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专转 注讜诪讚转 讜讞讜诪砖 讘诪拽讜诐 拽专讘谉 拽讗讬:

And Abaye said: Everyone agrees with regard to teruma that one is only liable to add a payment of one-fifth the value of the teruma for eating it unwittingly if he is unwitting with regard to its prohibition. The Gemara asks: To whose opinion is Abaye referring in the phrase: Everyone agrees? Certainly, it is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Even though, in general, he holds that unwitting with regard to karet is sufficient to render the action unwitting, the case of teruma is different. The Gemara asks: In the case of teruma, it is obvious that he would agree. When Rabbi Yo岣nan says that one need not be unwitting with regard to the prohibition, it is in a case where there is a prohibition punishable by karet; however, here, where there is no punishment of karet, Rabbi Yo岣nan would not say so. The Gemara answers that nonetheless Abaye introduced a novel element: Lest you say that since one who intentionally eats teruma is subject to death at the hand of Heaven, perhaps death stands in place of karet. And where he was unwitting with regard to the punishment of death for this sin, he should also be liable to pay the added fifth as one who performed the transgression unwittingly because his case is analogous to one who is considered unwitting due to lack of awareness of karet. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that it is not so. Rava said: Indeed, death stands in place of karet and the added one-fifth stands in place of a sacrifice. One who is unwitting with regard to death at the hand of Heaven and the added fifth has the same legal status as one who is unwitting with regard to karet and an offering.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 (讘讚专讱 讗讜) 讘诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬诪转讬 砖讘转 诪讜谞讛 砖砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗讜诪专 诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诪讜谞讛 砖砖讛 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讘专讬讬转讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘讚专讱 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬诪转讬 砖讘转 诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇砖砖讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讜谞讛 砖砖讛 讜诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇讗 诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诪讜谞讛 砖砖讛

Rav Huna said: One who was walking along the way or in the desert, and he does not know when Shabbat occurs, he counts six days from the day that he realized that he lost track of Shabbat and then observes one day as Shabbat. 岣yya bar Rav says: He first observes one day as Shabbat and then he counts six weekdays. The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Rav Huna, held: It is like the creation of the world, weekdays followed by Shabbat. And one Sage, 岣yya bar Rav, held: It is like Adam, the first man, who was created on the sixth day. He observed Shabbat followed by the six days of the week. The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of 岣yya bar Rav from a baraita: If a person was walking along the way and does not know when Shabbat occurs, he observes one day for every six. What, does this not mean that he counts six and then observes one day in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna? The Gemara rejects this: No, it could also mean that he observes one day and then counts six.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇砖砖讛 诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诪讜谞讛 砖砖讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘讚专讱 讗讜 讘诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬诪转讬 砖讘转 诪讜谞讛 砖砖讛 讜诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 转讬讜讘转讗 (讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗) 讘专 专讘 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara asks: If so, if that is what the baraita meant, why employ the phrase: He observes one day for six? It should have stated: He observes one day and counts six. And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita: If one was walking along the way or was in the desert, and he does not know when Shabbat occurs, he counts six days and observes one day. That is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of 岣yya bar Rav.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 注讜砖讛 诇讜 讻讚讬 驻专谞住转讜 [讘专 诪讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗] 讜讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 诇讬诪讜转 讚注讘讬讚 诪讗转诪讜诇 砖转讬 驻专谞住讜转 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诪讗转诪讜诇 砖讘转 讛讜讗讬 讗诇讗 讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 注讜砖讛 诇讜 驻专谞住转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讜讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讘诪讗讬 诪讬谞讻专 诇讬讛 讘拽讬讚讜砖讗 讜讗讘讚诇转讗

Rava said: The person who lost track of Shabbat and treats one day a week as Shabbat, each day he makes enough food to sustain himself, except for that day which he designated as Shabbat. The Gemara asks: And on that day let him die? Rather, it means that the day before he makes twice the amount of food that he prepared on the other days to sustain him for that day and the following day. The Gemara asks: And perhaps the day before was actually Shabbat? In that case, not only did he perform labor on Shabbat, but he also performed labor on Shabbat in preparation for a weekday. Rather, on each and every day he makes enough food to sustain himself for that day, including on that day that he designated as Shabbat. And if you ask: And how is that day which he designated as Shabbat distinguishable from the rest? It is distinguishable by means of the kiddush and the havdala that he recites on that day.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讻讬专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 砖讬爪讗 讘讜 注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讘转 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 [谞诪讬] 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 讜讛讗讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讞诪砖讛 讘砖讘转讗 谞驻讬拽 诇讬砖转专讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 诪诇讗讻讛 转专讬 讬讜诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖讻讞 砖讬讬专转讗 讜诪拽专讬 讜谞驻讬拽:

Rava said: If he had partial knowledge of the day on which he left, i.e., he does not recall what day of the week it was but he does recall the number of days that passed since he left, every week he can perform labor throughout the day of his departure, since he certainly did not leave his house on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: That is obvious, and what novel element was introduced here? The Gemara answers: Lest you say, since he did not leave on Shabbat, he also did not leave on Friday, and this person, even if he left on Thursday, should be permitted to perform labor for two days, the eighth day and the ninth day from his departure, the same day of the week that he left and the following day. Therefore, Rava teaches us that at times one finds a convoy and happens to leave on a journey even on Friday. Therefore, he is not permitted to perform labor on the day of the week following the day of his departure.

讛讬讜讚注 注讬拽专 砖讘转: 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讜砖诪专讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗转 砖讘转转讬 转砖诪专讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讜砖诪专讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖诪讬专讛 讗讞转 诇砖讘转讜转 讛专讘讛 讜讗转 砖讘转转讬 转砖诪专讜 砖诪讬专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 砖讘转 讜砖讘转

We learned in the mishna that there is a difference in halakha between one who knows the essence of Shabbat and one who does not know it. The Gemara asks: From where in the Torah are these matters derived? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Two verses are written. One states: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel observed the Shabbat, to perform the Shabbat through their generations, an everlasting covenant鈥 (Exodus 31:16). And it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall observe My Shabbatot and you shall revere My Sanctuary, I am God鈥 (Leviticus 26:2). How is it that Shabbat is in the singular in one verse, while in the other it is in the plural [Shabbatot]? It should be understood as follows: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel observed the Shabbat鈥: One observance for multiple Shabbatot. If one commits several transgressions, in certain cases he is only liable to bring one sacrifice. 鈥淎nd you shall observe My Shabbatot鈥: One observance for each and every Shabbat. In certain cases, one is liable to bring a sin-offering for each time that he unwittingly desecrated Shabbat.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 讜砖诪专讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖诪讬专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 砖讘转 讜砖讘转 讜讗转 砖讘转转讬 转砖诪专讜 砖诪讬专讛 讗讞转 诇砖讘转讜转 讛专讘讛:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k strongly objects: On the contrary, the opposite is reasonable. 鈥淎nd the children of Israel observed the Shabbat鈥: One observance for each and every Shabbat. 鈥淎nd you shall observe My Shabbatot鈥: One observance for multiple Shabbatot. In any case, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k also holds that the halakha of our mishna is derived from comparing and contrasting these two verses.

讛讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 砖讘转:

We learned in the mishna that there is a difference between one who is aware that the day is Shabbat and performs labor and one who forgets the essence of Shabbat and performs prohibited labors.

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Shabbat 68-74 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7W4SpfJpg4
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 69: On the *Second* Day, Adam (and Eve) Rested

Why do we need to know that there are 39 melakhot? After all, there's a list! It's all about what...

Shabbat 69

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 69

讜讻讬 转砖讙讜 讜诇讗 转注砖讜 讗转 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讛讗诇讛 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛谞驻砖 讗砖专 转注砖讛 讘讬讚 专诪讛 讛讜拽砖讜 讻讜诇诐 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转

鈥淎nd if you err, and do not perform all these commandments that God spoke to Moses鈥 (Numbers 15:22). The Sages understood this verse as referring specifically to the laws of idolatry. And it is written: 鈥淎nd the person who acts with a high hand, he blasphemes God and that soul shall be cut off from the midst of his people鈥 (Numbers 15:30), from which we learn that all the mitzvot are derived from this juxtaposition to idolatry. Just as there, with regard to idolatry, the reference is to a matter which, for its intentional violation, one is liable to be punished with karet, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd that soul shall be cut off,鈥 and for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering; so too, any matter that for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet, for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.

讜讗诇讗 诪讜谞讘讝 砖讙讙讛 讘诪讗讬 讻讙讜谉 砖砖讙讙 讘拽专讘谉 讜专讘谞谉 砖讙讙转 拽专讘谉 诇讗 砖诪讛 砖讙讙讛

The Gemara asks: However, according to Munbaz, who holds that included in the category of an unwitting sinner is one who at the time of action was aware that it was prohibited; if he were fully aware, in what sense was his action unwitting? The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where he was unwitting with regard to the sacrifice. He was aware that he was committing a transgression for which one is liable to be punished with karet when performed intentionally; however, he was unaware that he would be liable to bring a sin-offering if he performed the transgression unwittingly. Since he was not aware of all punishments and forms of atonement associated with that transgression, he is considered an unwitting sinner and is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis who disagree with Munbaz hold? They hold: Unwitting with regard to a sacrifice is not considered unwitting.

讜专讘谞谉 砖讙讙讛 讘诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讙讙 讘讻专转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讝讬讚 讘诇讗讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 注讚 砖讬砖讙讜讙 讘诇讗讜 讜讻专转 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 (讘砖讙讙讛) 讜讗砖诐 注讚 砖讬砖讙讜讙 讘诇讗讜 讜讻专转 砖讘讛

The Gemara asks: And in the opinion of the Rabbis, lack of awareness with regard to what aspects of the prohibition renders the action unwitting? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is an unwitting transgression since he was unwitting with regard to the fact that the punishment for his transgression is karet, even though he was aware that his action was in violation of a Torah prohibition, and he performed the transgression intentionally. And Reish Lakish said that according to the Rabbis it is not considered unwitting until he was unwitting with regard to both the prohibition and karet, i.e., he was unaware that his action was prohibited by Torah law. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? The verse said: 鈥淎nd if one soul shall sin by mistake from the common people, by performing one of God鈥檚 commandments that may not be done, and he becomes guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:27), indicating that it is not considered unwitting until he was unwitting with regard to the prohibition and its concomitant karet. The verse indicates that the individual was unaware that he violated 鈥渙ne of the commandments that may not be done,鈥 i.e., that there is a Torah prohibition with regard to that action.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇诪砖讜诪讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗砖专 诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 (讘砖讙讙讛) 讜讗砖诐 讛砖讘 诪讬讚讬注转讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 诇讗 砖讘 诪讬讚讬注转讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜:

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yo岣nan do with that verse cited as proof by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish? The Gemara answers: He needs it for that which was taught in a baraita: The phrase: 鈥淔rom the common people鈥 (Leviticus 4:27) teaches that only some sinners, not all, bring sacrifices for their unwitting sins. It comes to exclude an apostate. When an apostate sins unwittingly, he is under no obligation to bring a sin-offering even after he repents. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: This halakha is derived from the phrase in that verse: 鈥淭hat may not be done, and he becomes guilty.鈥 One who repents due to his awareness, i.e., one who repents as soon as he becomes aware that he performed a transgression, brings a sacrifice for his unwitting transgression. However, one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned, e.g., an apostate who continues to sin even after he becomes aware that he committed a transgression, does not bring an offering for his unwitting action. Rabbi Yo岣nan understood the verse in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

转谞谉 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讞住专 讗讞转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪谞讬谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇谉 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讝讚讜谉 砖讘转 讜砖讙讙转 诪诇讗讻讜转

The Gemara cites proof from what we learned in a mishna: The number of primary categories of prohibited labors on Shabbat is forty-less-one, which the mishna proceeds to list. And we discussed this mishna: Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? Isn鈥檛 merely listing the prohibited labors sufficient? And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The tally was included to teach that if he performed all of the prohibited labors in the course of one lapse of awareness during which he was unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable for each and every one. Therefore, the mishna indicated that one could conceivably be liable to bring thirty-nine sin-offerings. Under what circumstances can you find a case where one would be liable for unwittingly violating all thirty-nine labors? It must be in a case where with regard to Shabbat his actions were intentional, as he was aware that it was Shabbat; and with regard to the prohibited labors his actions were unwitting, as he was unaware that these labors are prohibited on Shabbat.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讙讙 讘讻专转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讛讝讬讚 讘诇讗讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讬讚注 诇讛 诇砖讘转 讘诇讗讜 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬砖讙讜讙 讘诇讗讜 讜讘讻专转 讚讬讚注 诇讬讛 诇砖讘转 讘诪讗讬 讚讬讚注讛 讘转讞讜诪讬谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: Once he was unwitting with regard to the fact that the punishment for his transgression is karet, even though he was aware that his action was in violation of a Torah prohibition, and he performed the transgression intentionally, he is considered to have sinned unwittingly, you find that possibility in a case where he was aware that performing labor on Shabbat involves violation of a Torah prohibition, but he was unaware that the punishment for violating that prohibition is karet. However, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who said: It is not considered unwitting until he was unwitting with regard to both the prohibition and karet, the result is that he is completely unaware of all the prohibited labors of Shabbat. If so, when Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the case where one would be liable to bring thirty-nine sin-offerings is one where with regard to Shabbat, his actions were intentional as he was aware that it was Shabbat, the question arises: With regard to what aspect of Shabbat was he aware? If he was completely unaware of all the labors prohibited on Shabbat, in what sense were his actions intentional with regard to Shabbat? The Gemara answers: He was aware of the halakhot of the prohibition of Shabbat boundaries, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Akiva, the prohibition to go beyond a certain distance outside the city limits on Shabbat is by Torah law and not merely a rabbinic decree.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讙讙 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 讝讛讜 砖讜讙讙 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 讛讝讬讚 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讝讬讚 讛讗诪讜专 讘转讜专讛 砖讙讙 讘砖讘转 讜讛讝讬讚 讘诪诇讗讻讜转 讗讜 砖砖讙讙 讘诪诇讗讻讜转 讜讛讝讬讚 讘砖讘转 讗讜 砖讗诪专 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖诪诇讗讻讛 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 讗讜 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 讻诪讗谉 讻诪讜谞讘讝

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this baraita? As the Sages taught: If one acted unwittingly with regard to both this, the fact that it is Shabbat, and that, the specific prohibited labors, that is the case of unwitting transgression stated in the Torah. If one acted intentionally with regard to both this and that, that is the case of intentional transgression stated in the Torah. If one acted unwittingly with regard to Shabbat and intentionally with regard to the labors, i.e., he forgot that it was Shabbat, but he was aware that those labors are prohibited when it is Shabbat; or if one acted unwittingly with regard to the labors and intentionally with regard to Shabbat, i.e., he was unaware that these labors are prohibited, but he was aware that labor is prohibited on Shabbat, or, even if he said: I know that this labor is prohibited on Shabbat; however, I do not know whether or not one is liable to bring a sacrifice for its performance, he is liable to bring a sin-offering like anyone who sins unwittingly. In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Munbaz, who holds that one is considered an unwitting sinner even in a case where he was unwitting only with regard to the sacrifice.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 注讚 砖讬砖讙讜讙 讘诇讗讜 砖讘讛 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 诪讗谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻专转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讻专转 诇讗

Abaye said: Everyone agrees with regard to an oath on a statement, a case where one swore to prohibit or to obligate himself to perform an action, that the halakha is as follows: If he violates his oath he is only liable to bring an offering if he was unwitting with regard to its prohibition, i.e., he was unaware that it is prohibited by Torah law to violate an oath. The Gemara asks: To whose opinion is Abaye referring in the phrase: Everyone agrees? Certainly, it is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis in their dispute with Munbaz. Even though Rabbi Yo岣nan generally holds that the fact that one is unwitting with regard to karet is sufficient to render his action unwitting, the case of an oath is different. The Gemara asks: In the case of an oath, it is obvious that he would agree. When Rabbi Yo岣nan says that one need not be unwitting with regard to the prohibition, it is in a case where there is a prohibition punishable by karet; however, here, where there is no punishment of karet, Rabbi Yo岣nan would not say so. Obviously, he agrees that one must be unwitting with regard to the prohibition. There appears to be nothing new in Abaye鈥檚 statement.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讬讘 拽专讘谉 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讚讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 诇讗讜 讚诪讬讬转讬 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 讜讛讻讗 诪讬讬转讬 讻讬 砖讙讙 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘

The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say the following: Since the obligation to bring an offering in the case of the oath is a novel halakha, as throughout the whole Torah in its entirety we do not find a prohibition for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring an offering and for whose intentional violation is not punishable by karet; and here, one is liable to bring an offering for its unwitting violation, I might have said that if he was unwitting, i.e., unaware that he would be obligated, with regard to the offering, let him be liable also according to the Rabbis, who disagree with Munbaz.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讙讙转 砖讘讜注转 讘讬讟讜讬 诇砖注讘专 砖讗诐 讗诪专 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖砖讘讜注讛 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉 讗讜 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 讛讗 诪谞讬 诪讜谞讘讝 讛讬讗

Therefore, Abaye teaches us that this is not so. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: What is an unwitting violation of an oath on a statement relating to the past? What is an example of one who unwittingly swore falsely with regard to an incident that occurred in the past? It cannot be a case where he forgot the incident, as in that case he is exempt from bringing an offering. It is a case where if he said: I know that taking this false oath is prohibited, but I do not know whether or not one is liable to bring an offering for swearing falsely, he is liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression. Apparently, with regard to an oath on a statement, unwitting with regard to the sacrifice renders the action unwitting. The Gemara rejects this: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is the opinion of Munbaz. In his opinion, one who commits a transgression while unaware whether or not one is liable to bring an offering if he performs that transgression unwittingly is considered to have performed the transgression unwittingly.

(诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讜谞讘讝 驻砖讬讟讗 讛砖转讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讚诇讗讜 讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讗诪专 砖讙讙转 拽专讘谉 砖诪讛 砖讙讙讛 讛讻讗 讚讞讬讚讜砖 讛讜讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬 转讬讜讘转讗):

There is another version of the discussion of Abaye鈥檚 statement where, after quoting the halakha with regard to an oath on a statement, the question was raised: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Munbaz, that is obvious: Now, if throughout the entire Torah where there is no novelty in the obligation to bring an offering, he said that unwitting with regard to an offering is considered unwitting; here, where there is a novelty and the offering in the case of an oath on a statement is more significant than other sin-offerings, certainly unwitting with regard to the offering should be considered unwitting. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讞讜诪砖 注讚 砖讬砖讙讜讙 讘诇讗讜 砖讘讛 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 诪讗谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻专转 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讻专转 诇讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讬转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专转 注讜诪讚转 讜讻讬 砖讙讙 讘诪讬转讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬转讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专转 注讜诪讚转 讜讞讜诪砖 讘诪拽讜诐 拽专讘谉 拽讗讬:

And Abaye said: Everyone agrees with regard to teruma that one is only liable to add a payment of one-fifth the value of the teruma for eating it unwittingly if he is unwitting with regard to its prohibition. The Gemara asks: To whose opinion is Abaye referring in the phrase: Everyone agrees? Certainly, it is the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Even though, in general, he holds that unwitting with regard to karet is sufficient to render the action unwitting, the case of teruma is different. The Gemara asks: In the case of teruma, it is obvious that he would agree. When Rabbi Yo岣nan says that one need not be unwitting with regard to the prohibition, it is in a case where there is a prohibition punishable by karet; however, here, where there is no punishment of karet, Rabbi Yo岣nan would not say so. The Gemara answers that nonetheless Abaye introduced a novel element: Lest you say that since one who intentionally eats teruma is subject to death at the hand of Heaven, perhaps death stands in place of karet. And where he was unwitting with regard to the punishment of death for this sin, he should also be liable to pay the added fifth as one who performed the transgression unwittingly because his case is analogous to one who is considered unwitting due to lack of awareness of karet. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that it is not so. Rava said: Indeed, death stands in place of karet and the added one-fifth stands in place of a sacrifice. One who is unwitting with regard to death at the hand of Heaven and the added fifth has the same legal status as one who is unwitting with regard to karet and an offering.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 (讘讚专讱 讗讜) 讘诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬诪转讬 砖讘转 诪讜谞讛 砖砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讗讜诪专 诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诪讜谞讛 砖砖讛 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讘专讬讬转讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讗讚诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘讚专讱 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬诪转讬 砖讘转 诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇砖砖讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讜谞讛 砖砖讛 讜诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇讗 诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诪讜谞讛 砖砖讛

Rav Huna said: One who was walking along the way or in the desert, and he does not know when Shabbat occurs, he counts six days from the day that he realized that he lost track of Shabbat and then observes one day as Shabbat. 岣yya bar Rav says: He first observes one day as Shabbat and then he counts six weekdays. The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Rav Huna, held: It is like the creation of the world, weekdays followed by Shabbat. And one Sage, 岣yya bar Rav, held: It is like Adam, the first man, who was created on the sixth day. He observed Shabbat followed by the six days of the week. The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of 岣yya bar Rav from a baraita: If a person was walking along the way and does not know when Shabbat occurs, he observes one day for every six. What, does this not mean that he counts six and then observes one day in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna? The Gemara rejects this: No, it could also mean that he observes one day and then counts six.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇砖砖讛 诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诪讜谞讛 砖砖讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 诪讛诇讱 讘讚专讱 讗讜 讘诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬诪转讬 砖讘转 诪讜谞讛 砖砖讛 讜诪砖诪专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 转讬讜讘转讗 (讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗) 讘专 专讘 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara asks: If so, if that is what the baraita meant, why employ the phrase: He observes one day for six? It should have stated: He observes one day and counts six. And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita: If one was walking along the way or was in the desert, and he does not know when Shabbat occurs, he counts six days and observes one day. That is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of 岣yya bar Rav.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 注讜砖讛 诇讜 讻讚讬 驻专谞住转讜 [讘专 诪讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗] 讜讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 诇讬诪讜转 讚注讘讬讚 诪讗转诪讜诇 砖转讬 驻专谞住讜转 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诪讗转诪讜诇 砖讘转 讛讜讗讬 讗诇讗 讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 注讜砖讛 诇讜 驻专谞住转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讜讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪讗 讘诪讗讬 诪讬谞讻专 诇讬讛 讘拽讬讚讜砖讗 讜讗讘讚诇转讗

Rava said: The person who lost track of Shabbat and treats one day a week as Shabbat, each day he makes enough food to sustain himself, except for that day which he designated as Shabbat. The Gemara asks: And on that day let him die? Rather, it means that the day before he makes twice the amount of food that he prepared on the other days to sustain him for that day and the following day. The Gemara asks: And perhaps the day before was actually Shabbat? In that case, not only did he perform labor on Shabbat, but he also performed labor on Shabbat in preparation for a weekday. Rather, on each and every day he makes enough food to sustain himself for that day, including on that day that he designated as Shabbat. And if you ask: And how is that day which he designated as Shabbat distinguishable from the rest? It is distinguishable by means of the kiddush and the havdala that he recites on that day.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讻讬专 诪拽爪转 讛讬讜诐 砖讬爪讗 讘讜 注讜砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讘转 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 [谞诪讬] 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 讜讛讗讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讞诪砖讛 讘砖讘转讗 谞驻讬拽 诇讬砖转专讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 诪诇讗讻讛 转专讬 讬讜诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖讻讞 砖讬讬专转讗 讜诪拽专讬 讜谞驻讬拽:

Rava said: If he had partial knowledge of the day on which he left, i.e., he does not recall what day of the week it was but he does recall the number of days that passed since he left, every week he can perform labor throughout the day of his departure, since he certainly did not leave his house on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: That is obvious, and what novel element was introduced here? The Gemara answers: Lest you say, since he did not leave on Shabbat, he also did not leave on Friday, and this person, even if he left on Thursday, should be permitted to perform labor for two days, the eighth day and the ninth day from his departure, the same day of the week that he left and the following day. Therefore, Rava teaches us that at times one finds a convoy and happens to leave on a journey even on Friday. Therefore, he is not permitted to perform labor on the day of the week following the day of his departure.

讛讬讜讚注 注讬拽专 砖讘转: 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讜砖诪专讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗转 砖讘转转讬 转砖诪专讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讜砖诪专讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖诪讬专讛 讗讞转 诇砖讘转讜转 讛专讘讛 讜讗转 砖讘转转讬 转砖诪专讜 砖诪讬专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 砖讘转 讜砖讘转

We learned in the mishna that there is a difference in halakha between one who knows the essence of Shabbat and one who does not know it. The Gemara asks: From where in the Torah are these matters derived? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Two verses are written. One states: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel observed the Shabbat, to perform the Shabbat through their generations, an everlasting covenant鈥 (Exodus 31:16). And it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall observe My Shabbatot and you shall revere My Sanctuary, I am God鈥 (Leviticus 26:2). How is it that Shabbat is in the singular in one verse, while in the other it is in the plural [Shabbatot]? It should be understood as follows: 鈥淎nd the children of Israel observed the Shabbat鈥: One observance for multiple Shabbatot. If one commits several transgressions, in certain cases he is only liable to bring one sacrifice. 鈥淎nd you shall observe My Shabbatot鈥: One observance for each and every Shabbat. In certain cases, one is liable to bring a sin-offering for each time that he unwittingly desecrated Shabbat.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 讜砖诪专讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 砖诪讬专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 砖讘转 讜砖讘转 讜讗转 砖讘转转讬 转砖诪专讜 砖诪讬专讛 讗讞转 诇砖讘转讜转 讛专讘讛:

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k strongly objects: On the contrary, the opposite is reasonable. 鈥淎nd the children of Israel observed the Shabbat鈥: One observance for each and every Shabbat. 鈥淎nd you shall observe My Shabbatot鈥: One observance for multiple Shabbatot. In any case, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k also holds that the halakha of our mishna is derived from comparing and contrasting these two verses.

讛讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 砖讘转:

We learned in the mishna that there is a difference between one who is aware that the day is Shabbat and performs labor and one who forgets the essence of Shabbat and performs prohibited labors.

Scroll To Top