Shabbat 73

אלא לאו רישא בעבודה זרה וסיפא בשאר מצות ושגג בלא מתכוין בשאר מצות היכי דמי דסבור דשומן הוא ואכלו מה שאין כן בשבת דפטור דנתכוון לחתוך את התלוש וחתך את המחובר פטור ואביי שגג בלא מתכוין היכי דמי דסבור רוק הוא ובלעו מה שאין כן בשבת דפטור דנתכוון להגביה את התלוש וחתך את המחובר פטור אבל נתכוון לחתוך את התלוש וחתך את המחובר חייב:

Rather, is it not that the first clause of the baraita is dealing with the contrast between Shabbat and idolatry, and the latter clause of the baraita is dealing with contrasting Shabbat and other mitzvot? And what are the circumstances of: Unwitting without intent, with regard to other mitzvot? It is in a case where one thought that it was permitted fat, and ate it, and later discovered that it was forbidden fat. This is one example of other mitzvot where one is liable. That is not the case with regard to Shabbat, where he is exempt, as one who intended to cut a detached plant and unwittingly severed a plant still attached to the ground is exempt. And according to Abaye, who holds that he is liable in that case, what are the circumstances of: Unwitting without intent, with regard to other mitzvot? It is in a case where one had something in his mouth and he thought it was spittle and swallowed it with no intention to eat it, and it turned out to be forbidden fat that he swallowed. This is one example of other mitzvot, where he is liable. That is not the case with regard to Shabbat, where the phrase: He is exempt, is referring to the case of one who intended to lift a plant detached from the ground and mistakenly severed a plant still attached to the ground. In that case, even Abaye agrees that he is exempt. However, one who intended to cut a detached plant and unwittingly severed a plant still attached to the ground is liable since he intended to perform a standard act of cutting. Therefore, no proof can be cited from this baraita.

איתמר נתכוון לזרוק שתים וזרק ארבע רבא אמר פטור אביי אמר חייב רבא אמר פטור דלא קמיכוין לזריקה דארבע אביי אמר חייב דהא קמיכוין לזריקה בעלמא כסבור רשות היחיד ונמצאת רשות הרבים רבא אמר פטור ואביי אמר חייב רבא אמר פטור דהא לא מיכוין לזריקה דאיסורא ואביי אמר חייב דהא קא מיכוין לזריקה בעלמא

A similar dispute between Abaye and Rava was stated. In the case of one who intended to throw an object two cubits in the public domain, for which he would not be liable by Torah law, and it turned out that he threw it four cubits, in violation of the prohibition by Torah law against carrying an object four cubits in the public domain, Rava said: He is exempt. Abaye said: He is liable. The Gemara elaborates: Rava said: He is exempt, as he does not intend to execute a throw of four cubits, and, consequently, does not intend to perform a prohibited act. Abaye said: He is liable, as he intends to execute a standard throw, and ultimately a throw that traveled a prohibited distance was executed. Another dispute between them was stated. In the case of one who thought that he was in the private domain and threw an object more than four cubits, and, ultimately, it was found to be the public domain, Rava said: He is exempt. And Abaye said: He is liable. The Gemara elaborates: Rava said: He is exempt, as he does not intend to execute a prohibited throw. In a private domain, he may throw an object as far as he chooses. And Abaye said: He is liable, as he intends to execute a standard throw.

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן קמייתא בההוא קאמר רבא דהא לא קמיכוין לחתיכה דאיסורא אבל נתכוון לזרוק שתים וזרק ארבע דארבע בלא תרתי לא מיזרקא ליה אימא מודה ליה לאביי ואי אשמעינן בהא בהא קאמר רבא דהא לא קמיכוין לזריקה דארבע אבל כסבור רשות היחיד ונמצא רשות הרבים דמכוין לזריקה דארבע אימא מודי ליה לאביי צריכא

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to mention these three disputes, despite their similarities, because each one teaches a unique element. As, had the Gemara taught us only the first, the case of one who intended to lift a plant detached from the ground and mistakenly severed a plant still attached to the ground, we would have said that it was only in that case that Rava said he is exempt, as he does not intend to perform an act of prohibited severing. He had no intention to perform an action that entails desecration of Shabbat. However, the ruling in the case of one who intended to throw an object two cubits in the public domain and he threw it four cubits would be more stringent, as an object cannot be thrown four cubits without being thrown two cubits. A throw of two cubits is a component part of the four-cubit throw. Consequently, say that in that case Rava agrees with Abaye, as he performed an act that has a prohibited dimension to it. And, had the Gemara taught us the dispute in this case of throwing two cubits as well, we would have said that it is only in that case that Rava says that he is exempt, as he does not intend to execute a throw of four cubits. A throw of fewer than four cubits does not constitute a transgression. However, in the case of one who thought that he was in the private domain, and ultimately it was found to be the public domain where the individual intends to execute a throw of four cubits, which is a prohibited distance, say that Rava agrees with Abaye that he is liable. Therefore, it is necessary to mention all three cases in which they disagree.

תנן אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת והוינן בה מנינא למה לי ואמר רבי יוחנן שאם עשאן כולם בהעלם אחד חייב על כל אחת ואחת בשלמא לאביי דאמר כי האי גוונא חייב משכחת לה דידע דאסורא שבת וידע לה איסור מלאכות וקא טעה בשיעורין אלא לרבא דאמר פטור היכי משכחת לה בזדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות

We learned in a mishna: The primary categories of labor are forty-less-one, and we discussed it and asked: Why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The tally was included to teach that if one 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. Granted, according to Abaye, who said that in a case like that one mentioned above, where one intended to throw an object two cubits and it traveled four cubits he is liable, you find that circumstance in a case where he was aware that the prohibition of Shabbat applies to certain labors, and he was aware that particular labors were prohibited, and was mistaken with regard to measures. He intended to perform an act involving less than the prohibited measure, and it turned out that the action he performed involved an amount equal to or greater than the prohibited measure. That is an unwitting act that renders him liable to bring a sin-offering, according to Abaye. However, according to Rava, who said that he is exempt in a case where one intended to throw an object two cubits and it traveled four cubits, in what circumstances do you find that he would be liable for each and every one? Is it in a case where, with regard to Shabbat, his actions were intentional, and, with regard to the prohibited labors, his actions were unwitting?

הניחא אי סבר לה כרבי יוחנן דאמר כיון ששגג בכרת אף על פי שהזיד בלאו משכחת לה דידע לה לשבת בלאו אלא אי סבר לה כרבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמר עד שישגוג בלאו וכרת דידע לה לשבת במאי דידע לה בתחומין ואליבא דרבי עקיבא:

It works out well if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, 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 performed the transgression intentionally, he is considered to have sinned unwittingly. If he holds in accordance with that opinion, you find a case where one could be liable for each and every prohibited labor when 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, if he holds in accordance with the opinion of 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. The question then 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, who holds that this prohibition is by Torah law.

מתני׳ אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת הזורע והחורש והקוצר והמעמר והדש והזורה הבורר הטוחן והמרקד והלש והאופה

MISHNA: This fundamental mishna enumerates those who perform the primary categories of labor prohibited on Shabbat, which number forty-less-one. They are grouped in accordance with their function: One who sows, and one who plows, and one who reaps, and one who gathers sheaves into a pile, and one who threshes, removing the kernel from the husk, and one who winnows threshed grain in the wind, and one who selects the inedible waste from the edible, and one who grinds, and one who sifts the flour in a sieve, and one who kneads dough, and one who bakes.

הגוזז את הצמר המלבנו והמנפצו והצובעו והטווה והמיסך והעושה שתי בתי נירין והאורג שני חוטין והפוצע שני חוטין הקושר והמתיר והתופר שתי תפירות הקורע על מנת לתפור [שתי תפירות]

Additional primary categories of prohibited labor are the following: One who shears wool, and one who whitens it, and one who combs the fleece and straightens it, and one who dyes it, and one who spins the wool, and one who stretches the threads of the warp in the loom, and one who constructs two meshes, tying the threads of the warp to the base of the loom, and one who weaves two threads, and one who severs two threads for constructive purposes, and one who ties a knot, and one who unties a knot, and one who sews two stitches with a needle, as well as one who tears a fabric in order to sew two stitches.

הצד צבי השוחטו והמפשיטו המולחו והמעבד את עורו והממחקו והמחתכו

One who traps a deer, or any living creature, and one who slaughters it, and one who flays it, and one who salts its hide, a step in the tanning process, and one who tans its hide, and one who smooths it, removing hairs and veins, and one who cuts it into measured parts.

הכותב שתי אותיות והמוחק על מנת לכתוב שתי אותיות הבונה והסותר המכבה והמבעיר המכה בפטיש המוציא מרשות לרשות הרי אלו אבות מלאכות ארבעים חסר אחת:

One who writes two letters and one who erases in order to write two letters. One who builds a structure, and one who dismantles it, one who extinguishes a fire, and one who kindles a fire. One who strikes a blow with a hammer to complete the production process of a vessel (Rabbeinu Ḥananel), and one who carries out an object from domain to domain. All these are primary categories of labor, and they number forty-less-one.

גמ׳ מנינא למה לי אמר רבי יוחנן שאם עשאן כולם בהעלם אחד חייב על כל אחת ואחת:

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that the primary categories of labor number forty-less-one. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this tally? Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

הזורע והחורש: מכדי מכרב כרבי ברישא ליתני חורש והדר ליתני זורע תנא בארץ ישראל קאי דזרעי ברישא והדר כרבי

We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who sows, and one who plows. The Gemara asks: Since, after all, in terms of plowing, one plows first and only then sows, let the tanna teach first one who plows, and afterward let him teach one who sows. The Gemara answers: The tanna ordered the mishna based on the practice in Eretz Yisrael, where they sow first and then plow. In Eretz Yisrael, the practice was to plow a second time after sowing to cover the seeds.

תנא הזורע והזומר והנוטע והמבריך והמרכיב כולן מלאכה אחת הן מאי קא משמע לן [הא קא משמע לן] העושה מלאכות הרבה מעין מלאכה אחת אינו חייב אלא אחת אמר רבי אחא אמר רבי חייא בר אשי אמר רבי אמי זומר חייב משום נוטע והנוטע והמבריך והמרכיב חייב משום זורע משום זורע אין משום נוטע לא אימא אף משום זורע

A baraita is taught with regard to the prohibited labor of sowing: One who sows, and one who prunes the branches of vines to accelerate their growth, and one who plants, and one who bends the branch of a vine or a tree into the ground so that it takes root while still attached to the trunk, and one who grafts the branch of one tree onto another have all performed one type of labor, as they all stimulate plant growth. The Gemara asks: What is the baraita teaching us? The Gemara explains: This teaches us that one who unwittingly performs numerous prohibited labors subsumed under a single primary category of labor, like those listed in the baraita, is liable to bring only one sin-offering, since they are considered aspects of the same labor. Rabbi Aḥa said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rabbi Ami said: One who prunes is liable for the labor of planting. And one who plants, and one who bends, and one who grafts is liable for the labor of sowing. The Gemara is surprised at this: Is that to say that one who bends and one who grafts a branch, for sowing, yes, he is liable; for planting, no, he is not liable? These labors, performed on trees, are more similar to planting. Rather, say as follows: One is liable even for sowing, as with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat there is no difference between sowing and planting.

אמר רב כהנא זומר וצריך לעצים חייב שתים אחת משום קוצר ואחת משום נוטע אמר רב יוסף האי מאן דקטל אספסתא חייב שתים אחת משום קוצר ואחת משום נוטע אמר אביי האי מאן דקניב סילקא חייב שתים אחת משום קוצר ואחת משום זורע:

Rav Kahana said: One who prunes a tree and needs the wood that he hewed from the tree for fuel or some other purpose is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One sin-offering due to the labor of reaping, like anyone who severs an item from the ground for the purpose of harvesting the detached object, and one sin-offering due to the labor of planting, since he thereby stimulates growth of the plant. Similarly, Rav Yosef said: One who reaps alfalfa is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One due to reaping, since he is cutting the plant for animal feed, and one due to planting, since cutting stimulates the growth of the alfalfa. Similarly, Abaye said: One who cuts beet leaves is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One due to reaping and one due to sowing.

והחורש: תנא החורש והחופר והחורץ כולן מלאכה אחת הן אמר רב ששת היתה לו גבשושית ונטלה בבית חייב משום בונה בשדה חייב משום חורש אמר רבא היתה לו גומא וטממה בבית חייב משום בונה בשדה משום חורש

We learned in the mishna among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who plows. A tanna taught in a baraita with regard to the labor of plowing: One who plows, and one who digs, and one who makes a furrow in the ground have all performed one type of labor. Rav Sheshet said: One who had a mound of earth and removed it in the house, thereby evening the surface, is liable due to the labor of building, as he thereby engages in construction of the house. In the field, he is liable due to the labor of plowing. Similarly, Rava said: One who had a hole and filled it, in the house he is liable due to the labor of building. In the field, he is liable due to the labor of plowing.

אמר רבי אבא החופר גומא בשבת ואינו צריך אלא לעפרה פטור עליה ואפילו לרבי יהודה דאמר מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב עליה הני מילי מתקן האי מקלקל הוא:

Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a hole on Shabbat and digs the hole only because he needs its dirt is exempt for that act, which is not the labor of digging prohibited on Shabbat by Torah law. And even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who said that in general one who performs labor that is not necessary for its own sake, i.e., he performs the labor for a purpose other than the direct result of that action, is liable for it; that ruling applies only to a purpose that is constructive. However, this purpose is destructive, as one performs an act that unnecessarily mars the surface of the ground. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda would agree that in this case he is exempt.

והקוצר: תנא הקוצר הבוצר והגודר והמסיק והאורה כולן מלאכה אחת אמר רב פפא האי מאן דשדא פיסא לדיקלא ואתר תמרי חייב שתים אחת משום תולש ואחת משום מפרק רב אשי אמר אין דרך תלישה בכך ואין דרך פריקה בכך:

And we learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who reaps. It was taught in a Tosefta with regard to the labor of reaping: One who reaps, and one who picks grapes, and one who harvests dates, and one who collects olives, and one who gathers figs have all performed one type of labor, as they all involve picking fruit. Rav Pappa said: One who threw a clod of earth at a palm tree and severed dates is liable to bring two sin-offerings: One due to severing, which is a subcategory of the primary category of reaping; and one for extracting, which is a subcategory of the primary category of threshing, as he removes something edible, the date, from its cover, its cluster. Rav Ashi said: In that case, one is exempt, since that is not the typical manner of severing, and that is not the typical manner of extracting, and one who performs a labor in an atypical manner is exempt.

והמעמר: אמר רבא האי מאן דכניף מילחא ממלחתא חייב משום מעמר אביי אמר אין עימור אלא בגידולי קרקע:

And we learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who gathers. Rava said: One who gathers salt from salt pools is liable due to the labor of gathering, as he gathers a substance from the field into a pile. Abaye said: That is not so, as the prohibition of gathering by Torah law applies only to produce that grows from the ground.

והדש: תנא הדש והמנפץ והמנפט כולן מלאכה אחת הן:

And we learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who threshes. A tanna taught in a Tosefta: One who threshes, and one who beats flax to remove it from the hard cover of its stalk, and one who strikes a cotton plant to remove the cotton seeds have all performed one type of labor.

הזורה הבורר והטוחן והמרקד: היינו זורה היינו בורר היינו מרקד אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו כל מילתא דהויא במשכן

And we learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who winnows, and one who selects, and one who grinds, and one who sifts. The Gemara asks: The prohibited labor of winnowing is the same as the prohibited labor of selecting, which is the same as the prohibited labor of sifting. They are all identical in the manner in which they are performed and have the same objective: Separating food from the accompanying waste. Why was it necessary to list them all? An answer was provided by Abaye and Rava, who both said and established a principle: Any manner of labor that was performed in the Tabernacle, for the purposes of the Tabernacle,