## Sanhedrin Daf 62b

###### Sanhedrin 62b:1
[Sanhedrin 62b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:1)

הָכִי תְּנָא קַמֵּיהּ: חוֹמֶר בַּשַּׁבָּת מִשְּׁאָר מִצְוֹת, חוֹמֶר בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת מִבַּשַּׁבָּת. חוֹמֶר בַּשַּׁבָּת – שֶׁהַשַּׁבָּת עָשָׂה שְׁתַּיִם בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת. חוֹמֶר בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת – שֶׁבִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת שָׁגַג בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּין חַיָּיב, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּשַּׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** is the *baraita* that Rabbi Zakkai **taught before** Rabbi Yoḥanan: There is **a stringency with regard to Shabbat vis-à-vis other mitzvot,** and conversely, there is **a stringency with regard to other mitzvot vis-à-vis Shabbat.** There is **a stringency with regard to Shabbat, as** with regard to **Shabbat,** if one **performed two** distinct acts of labor **in one lapse of awareness,** he is **obligated** to bring a sin-offering **for each and every** act, **which is not so with regard to other mitzvot.** Conversely, there is **a stringency with regard to other mitzvot, as with regard to other mitzvot,** if one sinned **unwittingly, without intent** to perform the act of the transgression at all, he is nevertheless **obligated** to bring an offering, **which is not so with regard to Shabbat.**


###### Sanhedrin 62b:2
[Sanhedrin 62b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:2)

אָמַר מָר: חוֹמֶר בַּשַּׁבָּת, שֶׁהַשַּׁבָּת עָשָׂה שְׁתַּיִם כּוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דַּעֲבַד קְצִירָה וּטְחִינָה, דִּכְוָותַהּ גַּבֵּי שְׁאָר מִצְוֹת – דַּאֲכַל חֵלֶב וָדָם. הָכָא תַּרְתֵּי מִיחַיַּיב, וְהָכָא תַּרְתֵּי מִיחַיַּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara examines this *baraita* in detail. **The Master said:** There is **a stringency with regard to Shabbat, as** with regard to **Shabbat,** if one **performed two** distinct acts of labor in one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each act. **What are the circumstances? If we say that** he unwittingly **performed** acts of **reaping and grinding** on Shabbat, **the corresponding** situation **with regard to other mitzvot** is a case **where** one unwittingly **consumed** forbidden **fat and blood.** If so, there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot; **here,** one **is obligated** to bring **two** sin-offerings, **and there,** one **is obligated** to bring **two** sin-offerings.


###### Sanhedrin 62b:3
[Sanhedrin 62b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:3)

אֶלָּא, גַּבֵּי שְׁאָר מִצְוֹת דְּאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? דַּאֲכַל חֵלֶב וָחֵלֶב. דִּכְוָותַהּ גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת, דַּעֲבַד קְצִירָה וּקְצִירָה. הָכָא חֲדָא מִיחַיַּיב, וְהָכָא חֲדָא מִיחַיַּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what are the circumstances with regard to other mitzvot where** one is **obligated** to bring **only one** sin-offering? One is obligated in a case **where he consumed** forbidden **fat and** again consumed forbidden **fat** within one lapse of awareness. **The corresponding** situation **with regard to Shabbat** is a case **where** one **performed** an act of **reaping and** performed another act of **reaping** within one lapse of awareness. In that case too there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot; **here,** one **is obligated** to bring **one** sin-offering, **and there,** one **is obligated** to bring **one** sin-offering.


###### Sanhedrin 62b:4
[Sanhedrin 62b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:4)

וְהַיְינוּ דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״פּוֹק תְּנִי לְבָרָא!״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And that is** the reason **that** Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to** Rabbi Zakkai: **Go out** and **teach** this *baraita* **outside;** it is not worthy of being taught in the study hall.


###### Sanhedrin 62b:5
[Sanhedrin 62b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:5)

מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּילְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לְךָ דַּעֲבַד קְצִירָה וּטְחִינָה, ״מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת״ אֲתָאן לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כִּדְרַבִּי אַמֵּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: זִיבַּח וְקִיטֵּר וְנִיסֵּךְ בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the difficulty** that caused Rabbi Yoḥanan to disregard the *baraita*? **Actually, perhaps I will say to you** that the *baraita* is referring to a case **where** one **performed** acts of **reaping and grinding** on Shabbat, and when the *baraita* states: **Which is not so with regard to other mitzvot,** it is not referring to all mitzvot in general; rather, **we arrive at** the *halakha* of **idol worship, in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Ami. As Rabbi Ami says:** If one **sacrificed** an animal as an idolatrous offering **and burned** incense **and poured a libation,** all **in** the course of **one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to** bring **only one** sin-offering.


###### Sanhedrin 62b:6
[Sanhedrin 62b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:6)

לָא מִיתּוֹקְמָא לֵיהּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: חוֹמֶר בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת, שֶׁבִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת שָׁגַג בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּין – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *baraita* **cannot be interpreted** as referring **to idol worship, as it teaches in the last clause:** There is **a stringency with regard to other mitzvot, as with regard to other mitzvot,** if one sinned **unwittingly, without** the **intent** to perform the act at all, he is nevertheless **obligated** to bring an offering.


###### Sanhedrin 62b:7
[Sanhedrin 62b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:7)

שׁוֹגֵג בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּין בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּקָסָבַר בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת הוּא וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לוֹ, הֲרֵי לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם. אֶלָּא דַּחֲזָא אִנְדְּרָטָא וּסְגֵיד לֵיהּ. אִי קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ – מֵזִיד הוּא, וְאִי לָא קַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ – לֹא כְּלוּם הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why this cannot be referring to idol worship. **What are the circumstances** of one who **unwittingly** transgresses the prohibition of **idol worship without** the **intent** to perform the act? **If he thought** that a house of idol worship was **a synagogue and bowed to it,** he is certainly exempt, as **his heart was** directed **toward Heaven. Rather,** it must be a case **where** the transgressor **saw** the **statue** of a person **and bowed to it. If he accepted** that person **upon himself as a god, he is an intentional** transgressor and is liable to receive the death penalty, not to bring an offering. **And if he did not accept him upon himself** as a god, what he did **is nothing.**


###### Sanhedrin 62b:8
[Sanhedrin 62b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:8)

אֶלָּא מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה. הָנִיחָא לְאַבַּיֵּי, דְּאָמַר חַיָּיב. אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר פָּטוּר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *baraita* must be referring to a case where one worshipped an idol **due to love or due to fear** of a person, and he was unaware that this is prohibited. **This works out well according to Abaye, who says** that one who engages in idol worship due to love or fear is **liable;** accordingly, one who does so unwittingly must bring an offering. **But according to Rava, who says** that one who does so is **exempt, what can be said?**


###### Sanhedrin 62b:9
[Sanhedrin 62b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:9)

אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּשַּׁבָּת דְּפָטוּר לִגְמָרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *baraita* must be referring to a case **where** the transgressor **says** to himself that idol worship is **permitted** in general. Accordingly, the statement in the *baraita*: **Which is not so in** the *halakhot* of **Shabbat,** is referring to one who was under the impression that performing labor on Shabbat is permitted. One **who** performs prohibited labor under those circumstances **is completely exempt,** while one who transgresses under those circumstances with regard to idol worship is obligated to bring a sin-offering.


###### Sanhedrin 62b:10
[Sanhedrin 62b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:10)

עַד כָּאן לָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן הֶעְלֵם זֶה וָזֶה – אֶלָּא אִי לְחַיּוֹבֵי חֲדָא, אִי לְחַיּוֹבֵי תַּרְתֵּי. פָּטוּר לִגְמָרֵי – לֵיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This interpretation of the *baraita* is difficult, as **Rava asked Rav Naḥman** about the *halakha* in a case where one violated Shabbat during **a lapse of awareness of** both **this,** that it was Shabbat, **and that** the particular labor that he performed is prohibited on Shabbat. And Rava’s question was **only** with regard to **whether to deem** the person **obligated** to bring **one** sin-offering or **whether to deem** him **obligated** to bring **two** sin-offerings. **There is no one who says** that such a person is **entirely exempt,** in accordance with this interpretation of the *baraita*. Therefore, the *baraita* cannot be referring to idol worship.


###### Sanhedrin 62b:11
[Sanhedrin 62b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:11)

מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: רֵישָׁא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְסֵיפָא בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this conclusion: **What is the difficulty** in interpreting the *baraita* as referring to idol worship? **Actually, perhaps I will say to you** that **the first clause** of the *baraita* is referring **to** the contrast between Shabbat and **idol worship, and the last clause** is referring **to** the contrast between Shabbat and **other mitzvot.**


###### Sanhedrin 62b:12
[Sanhedrin 62b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:12)

וְשָׁגַג בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּין, דְּקָסָבַר רוֹק הוּא וּבְלָעוֹ. מַה שֶׁאֵין כֵּן בַּשַּׁבָּת, דְּפָטוּר. שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּין לְהַגְבִּיהַּ אֶת הַתָּלוּשׁ וְחָתַךְ אֶת הַמְחוּבָּר – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the *halakha* of one who transgressed other mitzvot **unwittingly, without intent** to perform the act, is referring to, e.g., a case **where** one has forbidden fat in his mouth and **thinks it is spittle, and he swallows it.** In that case he must bring an offering for his transgression, **which is not so with regard to** the *halakhot* of **Shabbat, where** in a parallel case one would be **exempt. As,** for example, one who **intended to lift** a plant that was **detached** from the ground **and** mistakenly **severed** a plant still **attached** to the ground is **exempt.** One is not liable for an unintentional act of labor on Shabbat.


###### Sanhedrin 62b:13
[Sanhedrin 62b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:13)

וְכִדְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: הַמִּתְעַסֵּק בַּחֲלָבִים וּבַעֲרָיוֹת – חַיָּיב, שֶׁכֵּן נֶהֱנֶה; הַמִּתְעַסֵּק בְּשַׁבָּת – פָּטוּר, מְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this distinction is **in accordance with** the statement **that Rav Naḥman** says that **Shmuel says, as he says: One who acts unawares with** forbidden **fats or with those with whom sexual relations are forbidden,** i.e., one who accidentally consumed forbidden fat or engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse, without intending to perform the act at all (see *Yevamot* 54a), is **obligated** to bring a sin-offering, **since he derived pleasure** from the transgression. But **one who acts unawares on Shabbat,** performing forbidden labor, is **exempt,** as **the Torah prohibits** only **planned labor.**


###### Sanhedrin 62b:14
[Sanhedrin 62b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:14)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּלָא מוֹקֵים מַתְנִיתָא רֵישָׁא בְּחַד טַעְמָא וְסֵיפָא בְּחַד טַעְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since the *baraita* can be explained in this manner, the Gemara explains why Rabbi Yoḥanan rejected it anyway: **Rabbi Yoḥanan** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning,** in **that he does not interpret the first clause** of **a *baraita* with one explanation and the last clause** of the same *baraita* **with one** other **explanation.** Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept the premise that a *baraita* can be referring to a different matter in each clause unless it states so explicitly.


###### Sanhedrin 62b:15
[Sanhedrin 62b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:15)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאן דִּמְתַרְגֵּם לִי חָבִית אַלִּיבָּא דְּחַד תַּנָּא, מוֹבֵילְנָא מָאנֵיהּ בָּתְרֵיהּ לְבֵי מַסּוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whoever explains to me** the mishna concerning **a barrel** (*Bava Metzia* 40b) **in accordance with** the opinion **of one *tanna*, I will carry his clothes after him to the bathhouse,** i.e., I will attend him as a servant, as although that mishna can be explained by dividing it into two different opinions, I do not accept that type of explanation. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept the suggestion that the first clause of the *baraita* here is referring to idol worship and the last clause is referring to other mitzvot.


###### Sanhedrin 62b:16
[Sanhedrin 62b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/62b:16)

גּוּפָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself,** namely, whether one who engages in several forms of idol worship in the same lapse of awareness brings more than one sin-offering.