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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 17, 2020 | 讻状讙 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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Shabbat 72

Today’s shiur is dedicated for a refuah shleima to Leah Naomi bat Rachel by Deborah Dickson. We are pleased to be part of International Women’s Talmud Day that is taking place today with Talmud learning events throughout the day.聽

What is the law regarding the guilt offering for one who has relations with a designated maidservant numerous times – does one bring a separate guilt offering for each time if he was made aware of his sin in between each act? On what does it depend? If someone intends to perform a permitted act on Shabbat and ends up doing a forbidden act instead – like for example, one wanted to pick up something off the ground that was detached but instead lifted up and detached something from the ground, one is not obligated – this is called mitasek. What if one intended to cut something that was detached and in the end cut something that was attached (or according to Tosafot – one thought it was detached but it was attached)? Rava and Abaye disagree as to whether this person is obligated or not. Rava brings proof from a braita comparing Shabbat to other mitzvot and explaining that Shabbat is both more lenient and more stringent than other mitzvot. What is the “other mitzvot” referring to in these comparisons?

 

讘注诇 讞诪砖 讘注讬诇讜转 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘注诇 讜讞讝专 讜讘注诇 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜讗诪专 讛诪转讬谞讜 诇讬 注讚 砖讗讘注讜诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 拽讗诪专转 诪注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

one who had relations with a designated maidservant five times is only liable to bring one guilt-offering, even if he became aware of his transgression between each instance of relations with her. Because awareness is insignificant with regard to this sacrifice, it does not demarcate in terms of the number of guilt-offerings that he is liable to bring. Rav Hamnuna strongly objects to this halakha: But if what you say is so, one who had relations with a designated maidservant, and again had relations, and designated an animal for the offering, and said: Wait for me before sacrificing the offering until I have relations again, so that the guilt-offering will atone for this transgression as well, would you say that the same applies in that case too, that he is only liable to bring one guilt-offering? Ulla said to him: You referred to an action performed after designation of an animal for the guilt-offering. I did not say that halakha with regard to an action that was performed after designation.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讘注诇 讞诪砖 讘注讬诇讜转 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛专讬 讞讟讗转 讚讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讬砖转讬拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讘诪注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 拽讗诪专转 讜讻讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: According to the one who said that in order to designate a definite guilt-offering one requires prior knowledge that he definitely sinned, one who had relations five times with a designated maidservant is liable to bring a guilt-offering for each and every one. Because awareness is significant with regard to guilt-offerings, the awareness between the acts of cohabitation renders each a separate transgression. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: That is not so, as with regard to a sin-offering for which we require prior knowledge, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagree whether or not awareness following an unwitting sin demarcates one transgression from another. Rav Dimi was silent and had no response. In an attempt to resolve the problem, Abaye said to him: Perhaps you said your statement with regard to an act that the sinner seeks to commit after designating an animal as a guilt-offering but wants to attain atonement for by means of that same designated sacrifice. That statement is in accordance with the statement of Rav Hamnuna. Rav Dimi remembered and said to Abaye: Yes, that was what was originally stated.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讜讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讻讚注讜诇讗 讜讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讚讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讻专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖:

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he cited several disputes concerning the halakhot of guilt-offerings and said: Everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant, and everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant, and there is a dispute with regard to a designated maidservant. The Gemara elaborates: Everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant; one is liable to bring only one guilt-offering, even for many acts of cohabitation, in accordance with the opinion of Ulla. Ulla said that since prior knowledge is not required for liability to bring a guilt-offering, even if one became aware of his transgression between each time he had relations, he brings only one sacrifice. And everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant; one is liable for each and every act of cohabitation, if it occurred after designation of an animal for a guilt-offering for the previous transgression, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna. And there is a dispute with regard to a designated maidservant; this refers to the one who said that, in order to designate a definite guilt-offering, one requires prior knowledge that he definitely sinned. In that case, the legal status of the guilt-offering is equal to that of the sin-offering and is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who disagree whether awareness between two unwitting transgressions demarcates and requires two offerings.

讗讬转诪专

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the halakha in the following case:

谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 驻讟讜专 诇讞转讜讱 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讚讛讗 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讞转讬讻讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讞转讬讻讛 讘注诇诪讗

One who intended to lift a plant detached from the ground on Shabbat and mistakenly severed a plant still attached to the ground, which under other circumstances constitutes performance of the prohibited labor of reaping, is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for his mistaken act, since he did not intend to perform an act of cutting. One who performs an action unawares [mitasek], i.e., he had no intention to perform the act at all, incurs no liability whatsoever. One who intended to cut a detached plant and unwittingly severed a plant still attached to the ground, Rava said: He too is exempt. Abaye said: He is liable. The Gemara elaborates: Rava said that he is exempt because he did not intend to perform an act of prohibited severing. He intended to perform an action completely permitted on Shabbat. He had no misconception with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. It was merely a mistaken act. And Abaye said that he is liable because he intended to perform a standard act of cutting. Since he intended to perform that act, and he carried out his intent, the Torah characterizes it as unwitting and not as unawares.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞讜诪专 砖讘转 诪砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讜讞讜诪专 砖讗专 诪爪讜转 诪砖讘转 讞讜诪专 砖讘转 诪砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讛砖讘转 注砖讛 砖转讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讜讞讜诪专 砖讗专 诪爪讜转 诪砖讘转 砖讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讙讙 讘诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讘转:

Rava said: From where do I derive to say this opinion? As it was taught in a baraita: There is a stricture with regard to the prohibitions of Shabbat that is greater than the stricture with regard to other mitzvot, and a stricture with regard to other mitzvot that is greater than the stricture with regard to Shabbat. The Gemara elaborates: A stricture with regard to Shabbat that is greater than the stricture with regard to other mitzvot is that, with regard to Shabbat, one who performed two transgressions on Shabbat, even if he did so in the course of one lapse of awareness, is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every one, which is not the case in other mitzvot. In other mitzvot, if an individual commits a transgression several times in the course of one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. And a stricture with regard to other mitzvot that is greater than the stricture with regard to Shabbat is that, with regard to other mitzvot, one who performs an act unwittingly without intent is liable, which is not the case with regard to Shabbat. Apparently, the phrase unwittingly without intent refers to the case disputed by Abaye and Rava. Therefore, this is proof for Rava鈥檚 opinion that, with regard to Shabbat, one who acts unawares, i.e., whose action resulted from involvement in another matter and who had no intention to perform an action that is prohibited, is not considered to have performed an unwitting act.

讗诪专 诪专 讞讜诪专 砖讘转 诪砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讛砖讘转 注砖讛 砖转讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚注讘讚 拽爪讬专讛 讜讟讞讬谞讛 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讚诐 讛讻讗 转专转讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讛讻讗 转专转讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讚诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讞诇讘 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 砖讘转 讚注讘讚 拽爪讬专讛 讜拽爪讬专讛 讛讻讗 讞讚讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讛讻讗 讞讚讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Before the Gemara discusses the baraita in the context of the dispute between Abaye and Rava, the Gemara analyzes its text. The Master said in the baraita: A stricture with regard to Shabbat that is greater than the stricture with regard to other mitzvot is that, with regard to Shabbat, one who performed two transgressions on Shabbat, even in the course of one lapse of awareness, is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every one, which is not the case with regard to other mitzvot. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If you say that he unwittingly performed acts of reaping and grinding on Shabbat, the corresponding situation with regard to other mitzvot is a case where he ate forbidden fat and blood. If so, there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot. Here one is liable to bring two sin-offerings and here one is liable to bring two sin-offerings. Rather, what are the circumstances in other mitzvot where he is liable to bring only one sin-offering? It is in a case where he ate forbidden fat and again ate 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. However, in that case too there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot. Here one is liable to bring one sin-offering, and here one is liable to bring one sin-offering.

诇注讜诇诐 讚注讘讚 拽爪讬专讛 讜讟讞讬谞讛 讜诪讗讬 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讗注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讝讬讘讞 讜拽讬讟专 讜谞讬住讱 讘讛注诇诪讛 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

The Gemara explains: Actually, it is referring to a case where one performed acts of reaping and grinding. And what is the meaning of the phrase: Which is not the case with regard to other mitzvot? It is not referring to all mitzvot in general. It is referring to the prohibition of idolatry, which is comprised of separate component prohibitions, each of which incurs independent liability. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: One who sacrificed to idolatry, and burned incense before it, and poured wine as a libation before it in the course of one lapse of awareness is liable to bring only one sin-offering. That is the ruling, even though, had he performed those rites separately, he would be liable to bring a sin-offering for each. That, then, is the stricture of other mitzvot relative to Shabbat.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讞讜诪专 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讙讙 讘诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讘转 讛讗讬 砖讙讙 讘诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻住讘讜专 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讛讜讗 讜讛砖转讞讜讛 诇讛 讛专讬 诇讘讜 诇砖诪讬诐 讜讗诇讗 讚讞讝讬 讗谞讚专讟讗 讜住讙讬讚 诇讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛 讘讗诇讜讛 诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛 讘讗诇讜讛 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: In what case did you establish the baraita, in the case of idolatry? If so, state the latter clause and determine whether that explanation applies there as well. The latter clause states: A stricture with regard to other mitzvot that is greater than the stricture with regard to Shabbat is that, with regard to other mitzvot, one who performs an act unwittingly without intent is liable, which is not the case with regard to Shabbat. One who acts unawares with no intent to perform a prohibited act is not considered to have performed an unwitting act. That case of performing an act unwittingly without intent with regard to idolatry, what are the circumstances? If you say that it is referring to a case where he thought that it was a synagogue and bowed to it, and it turned out that he bowed to idolatry, he committed no transgression. Since his heart was directed toward Heaven, it is not even an unwitting transgression. Rather, it is referring to a case where he saw a statue [andarta] in the image of the king and bowed to it. What are the circumstances? If the baraita is referring to a case in which he bowed because he accepted that image upon himself as a god, he worshipped idolatry intentionally and is not liable to bring a sin-offering. And if he did not accept that image upon himself as a god and bowed merely in deference to the monarch, it is meaningless and is not an act of idolatry.

讗诇讗 诪讗讛讘讛 讜诪讬专讗讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讘转 讚驻讟讜专 诇讙诪专讬

Rather, it is referring to a case where one bowed due to love of someone who requested that he bow before the statue and due to fear of someone coercing him to do so. He is under the impression that unless he wholeheartedly has the intention to worship the idol, there is no prohibition involved. This works out well according to the opinion of Abaye, who said: One who bows due to love or fear is liable to bring a sin-offering. However, according to the opinion of Rava, who said: One who bows due to love or fear is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, what can be said? According to Rava鈥檚 opinion, the problem remains. There is no case in which there is a difference between the ruling in the case of idolatry and the ruling in the case of Shabbat. Rather, it is referring to a case where one says to himself that this is permitted. He is under the impression that idolatry is permitted, and his unwitting act was the result of ignorance, not forgetfulness. The statement in the baraita: Which is not the case with regard to Shabbat, is referring to one who was under the impression that performing labors on Shabbat is permitted. One who performs prohibited labors under those circumstances is completely exempt.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 诇讞讬讜讘讬 讞讚讗 讗讬 诇讞讬讜讘讬 转专转讬 讗讘诇 诪驻讟专讬 诇讙诪专讬 诇讗

That conclusion contradicts another statement of Rava. With regard to one who is unaware of both the essence of Shabbat and the individual prohibited labors, Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an only whether to deem him liable to bring one or whether to deem him liable to bring two sin-offerings. However, the possibility to exempt him completely did not enter Rava鈥檚 mind. That explanation of the baraita is incompatible with Rava鈥檚 opinion.

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鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 72: My Mitzvah Can Beat Up Your Mitzvah

The Gemara claims: Shabbat is a more stringent area of halakhah than other mitzvot - and where it is less...

Shabbat 72

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 72

讘注诇 讞诪砖 讘注讬诇讜转 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘注诇 讜讞讝专 讜讘注诇 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜讗诪专 讛诪转讬谞讜 诇讬 注讚 砖讗讘注讜诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 拽讗诪专转 诪注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

one who had relations with a designated maidservant five times is only liable to bring one guilt-offering, even if he became aware of his transgression between each instance of relations with her. Because awareness is insignificant with regard to this sacrifice, it does not demarcate in terms of the number of guilt-offerings that he is liable to bring. Rav Hamnuna strongly objects to this halakha: But if what you say is so, one who had relations with a designated maidservant, and again had relations, and designated an animal for the offering, and said: Wait for me before sacrificing the offering until I have relations again, so that the guilt-offering will atone for this transgression as well, would you say that the same applies in that case too, that he is only liable to bring one guilt-offering? Ulla said to him: You referred to an action performed after designation of an animal for the guilt-offering. I did not say that halakha with regard to an action that was performed after designation.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讘注诇 讞诪砖 讘注讬诇讜转 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛专讬 讞讟讗转 讚讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讬砖转讬拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讘诪注砖讛 讚诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 拽讗诪专转 讜讻讚专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: According to the one who said that in order to designate a definite guilt-offering one requires prior knowledge that he definitely sinned, one who had relations five times with a designated maidservant is liable to bring a guilt-offering for each and every one. Because awareness is significant with regard to guilt-offerings, the awareness between the acts of cohabitation renders each a separate transgression. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: That is not so, as with regard to a sin-offering for which we require prior knowledge, Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagree whether or not awareness following an unwitting sin demarcates one transgression from another. Rav Dimi was silent and had no response. In an attempt to resolve the problem, Abaye said to him: Perhaps you said your statement with regard to an act that the sinner seeks to commit after designating an animal as a guilt-offering but wants to attain atonement for by means of that same designated sacrifice. That statement is in accordance with the statement of Rav Hamnuna. Rav Dimi remembered and said to Abaye: Yes, that was what was originally stated.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讜讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讻讚注讜诇讗 讜讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讚讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讻专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖:

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he cited several disputes concerning the halakhot of guilt-offerings and said: Everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant, and everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant, and there is a dispute with regard to a designated maidservant. The Gemara elaborates: Everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant; one is liable to bring only one guilt-offering, even for many acts of cohabitation, in accordance with the opinion of Ulla. Ulla said that since prior knowledge is not required for liability to bring a guilt-offering, even if one became aware of his transgression between each time he had relations, he brings only one sacrifice. And everyone agrees with regard to a designated maidservant; one is liable for each and every act of cohabitation, if it occurred after designation of an animal for a guilt-offering for the previous transgression, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Hamnuna. And there is a dispute with regard to a designated maidservant; this refers to the one who said that, in order to designate a definite guilt-offering, one requires prior knowledge that he definitely sinned. In that case, the legal status of the guilt-offering is equal to that of the sin-offering and is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who disagree whether awareness between two unwitting transgressions demarcates and requires two offerings.

讗讬转诪专

It was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to the halakha in the following case:

谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛讙讘讬讛 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 驻讟讜专 诇讞转讜讱 讗转 讛转诇讜砖 讜讞转讱 讗转 讛诪讞讜讘专 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讗 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讚讛讗 诇讗 谞转讻讜讜谉 诇讞转讬讻讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讚讛讗 拽诪讬讻讜讬谉 诇讞转讬讻讛 讘注诇诪讗

One who intended to lift a plant detached from the ground on Shabbat and mistakenly severed a plant still attached to the ground, which under other circumstances constitutes performance of the prohibited labor of reaping, is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for his mistaken act, since he did not intend to perform an act of cutting. One who performs an action unawares [mitasek], i.e., he had no intention to perform the act at all, incurs no liability whatsoever. One who intended to cut a detached plant and unwittingly severed a plant still attached to the ground, Rava said: He too is exempt. Abaye said: He is liable. The Gemara elaborates: Rava said that he is exempt because he did not intend to perform an act of prohibited severing. He intended to perform an action completely permitted on Shabbat. He had no misconception with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat. It was merely a mistaken act. And Abaye said that he is liable because he intended to perform a standard act of cutting. Since he intended to perform that act, and he carried out his intent, the Torah characterizes it as unwitting and not as unawares.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讞讜诪专 砖讘转 诪砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讜讞讜诪专 砖讗专 诪爪讜转 诪砖讘转 讞讜诪专 砖讘转 诪砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讛砖讘转 注砖讛 砖转讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讜讞讜诪专 砖讗专 诪爪讜转 诪砖讘转 砖讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讙讙 讘诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讘转:

Rava said: From where do I derive to say this opinion? As it was taught in a baraita: There is a stricture with regard to the prohibitions of Shabbat that is greater than the stricture with regard to other mitzvot, and a stricture with regard to other mitzvot that is greater than the stricture with regard to Shabbat. The Gemara elaborates: A stricture with regard to Shabbat that is greater than the stricture with regard to other mitzvot is that, with regard to Shabbat, one who performed two transgressions on Shabbat, even if he did so in the course of one lapse of awareness, is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every one, which is not the case in other mitzvot. In other mitzvot, if an individual commits a transgression several times in the course of one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. And a stricture with regard to other mitzvot that is greater than the stricture with regard to Shabbat is that, with regard to other mitzvot, one who performs an act unwittingly without intent is liable, which is not the case with regard to Shabbat. Apparently, the phrase unwittingly without intent refers to the case disputed by Abaye and Rava. Therefore, this is proof for Rava鈥檚 opinion that, with regard to Shabbat, one who acts unawares, i.e., whose action resulted from involvement in another matter and who had no intention to perform an action that is prohibited, is not considered to have performed an unwitting act.

讗诪专 诪专 讞讜诪专 砖讘转 诪砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讛砖讘转 注砖讛 砖转讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚注讘讚 拽爪讬专讛 讜讟讞讬谞讛 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讚诐 讛讻讗 转专转讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讛讻讗 转专转讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讚诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讞诇讘 讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 砖讘转 讚注讘讚 拽爪讬专讛 讜拽爪讬专讛 讛讻讗 讞讚讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讜讛讻讗 讞讚讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Before the Gemara discusses the baraita in the context of the dispute between Abaye and Rava, the Gemara analyzes its text. The Master said in the baraita: A stricture with regard to Shabbat that is greater than the stricture with regard to other mitzvot is that, with regard to Shabbat, one who performed two transgressions on Shabbat, even in the course of one lapse of awareness, is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every one, which is not the case with regard to other mitzvot. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If you say that he unwittingly performed acts of reaping and grinding on Shabbat, the corresponding situation with regard to other mitzvot is a case where he ate forbidden fat and blood. If so, there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot. Here one is liable to bring two sin-offerings and here one is liable to bring two sin-offerings. Rather, what are the circumstances in other mitzvot where he is liable to bring only one sin-offering? It is in a case where he ate forbidden fat and again ate 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. However, in that case too there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot. Here one is liable to bring one sin-offering, and here one is liable to bring one sin-offering.

诇注讜诇诐 讚注讘讚 拽爪讬专讛 讜讟讞讬谞讛 讜诪讗讬 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 讗注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讝讬讘讞 讜拽讬讟专 讜谞讬住讱 讘讛注诇诪讛 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

The Gemara explains: Actually, it is referring to a case where one performed acts of reaping and grinding. And what is the meaning of the phrase: Which is not the case with regard to other mitzvot? It is not referring to all mitzvot in general. It is referring to the prohibition of idolatry, which is comprised of separate component prohibitions, each of which incurs independent liability. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: One who sacrificed to idolatry, and burned incense before it, and poured wine as a libation before it in the course of one lapse of awareness is liable to bring only one sin-offering. That is the ruling, even though, had he performed those rites separately, he would be liable to bring a sin-offering for each. That, then, is the stricture of other mitzvot relative to Shabbat.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讞讜诪专 讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讘砖讗专 诪爪讜转 砖讙讙 讘诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讘转 讛讗讬 砖讙讙 讘诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻住讘讜专 讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讛讜讗 讜讛砖转讞讜讛 诇讛 讛专讬 诇讘讜 诇砖诪讬诐 讜讗诇讗 讚讞讝讬 讗谞讚专讟讗 讜住讙讬讚 诇讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛 讘讗诇讜讛 诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讘诇讛 注诇讬讛 讘讗诇讜讛 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: In what case did you establish the baraita, in the case of idolatry? If so, state the latter clause and determine whether that explanation applies there as well. The latter clause states: A stricture with regard to other mitzvot that is greater than the stricture with regard to Shabbat is that, with regard to other mitzvot, one who performs an act unwittingly without intent is liable, which is not the case with regard to Shabbat. One who acts unawares with no intent to perform a prohibited act is not considered to have performed an unwitting act. That case of performing an act unwittingly without intent with regard to idolatry, what are the circumstances? If you say that it is referring to a case where he thought that it was a synagogue and bowed to it, and it turned out that he bowed to idolatry, he committed no transgression. Since his heart was directed toward Heaven, it is not even an unwitting transgression. Rather, it is referring to a case where he saw a statue [andarta] in the image of the king and bowed to it. What are the circumstances? If the baraita is referring to a case in which he bowed because he accepted that image upon himself as a god, he worshipped idolatry intentionally and is not liable to bring a sin-offering. And if he did not accept that image upon himself as a god and bowed merely in deference to the monarch, it is meaningless and is not an act of idolatry.

讗诇讗 诪讗讛讘讛 讜诪讬专讗讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讘转 讚驻讟讜专 诇讙诪专讬

Rather, it is referring to a case where one bowed due to love of someone who requested that he bow before the statue and due to fear of someone coercing him to do so. He is under the impression that unless he wholeheartedly has the intention to worship the idol, there is no prohibition involved. This works out well according to the opinion of Abaye, who said: One who bows due to love or fear is liable to bring a sin-offering. However, according to the opinion of Rava, who said: One who bows due to love or fear is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, what can be said? According to Rava鈥檚 opinion, the problem remains. There is no case in which there is a difference between the ruling in the case of idolatry and the ruling in the case of Shabbat. Rather, it is referring to a case where one says to himself that this is permitted. He is under the impression that idolatry is permitted, and his unwitting act was the result of ignorance, not forgetfulness. The statement in the baraita: Which is not the case with regard to Shabbat, is referring to one who was under the impression that performing labors on Shabbat is permitted. One who performs prohibited labors under those circumstances is completely exempt.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 诇讞讬讜讘讬 讞讚讗 讗讬 诇讞讬讜讘讬 转专转讬 讗讘诇 诪驻讟专讬 诇讙诪专讬 诇讗

That conclusion contradicts another statement of Rava. With regard to one who is unaware of both the essence of Shabbat and the individual prohibited labors, Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an only whether to deem him liable to bring one or whether to deem him liable to bring two sin-offerings. However, the possibility to exempt him completely did not enter Rava鈥檚 mind. That explanation of the baraita is incompatible with Rava鈥檚 opinion.

Scroll To Top