## Shabbat Daf 154a

###### Shabbat 154a:1
[Shabbat 154a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/154a:1)

רַב זְבִיד מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הַמְחַמֵּר אַחַר בְּהֵמָה בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, בְּמֵזִיד — חַיָּיב סְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid taught** this **as follows. Rami bar Ḥama said:** With regard to **one who drives his** laden **animal on Shabbat,** if he does so **unwittingly, he is not liable** to bring a **sin-offering,** and if he does so **intentionally, he is liable** to be executed by **stoning.**


###### Shabbat 154a:2
[Shabbat 154a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/154a:2)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת בְּדָבָר שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת — חַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ סְקִילָה. הָא אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ סְקִילָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection** based on that which was taught in a *baraita*: **One who desecrates Shabbat by** performing **a matter that for its unwitting** performance one is **liable** to bring **a sin-offering,** then **for its intentional** performance one is **liable** to be executed by **stoning.** The Gemara explains: By inference, for **a matter that for its unwitting** performance one is **not liable** to bring **a sin-offering, for its intentional** performance one is **not liable** to be executed by **stoning.** This contradicts Rami bar Ḥama’s statement.


###### Shabbat 154a:3
[Shabbat 154a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/154a:3)

מִי קָתָנֵי ״הָא אֵין חַיָּיבִין כּוּ׳״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת — חַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ סְקִילָה. וְיֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת — וְחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ סְקִילָה, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? — מְחַמֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Was it taught** in the *baraita*: By inference, for a matter that for its unwitting performance one is **not liable** to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning? The *baraita* can be understood differently, **and this is what it is saying:** With regard to **a matter that for its unwitting** performance one is **liable** to bring **a sin-offering, for its intentional** performance one is always **liable** to be executed by **stoning.** However, **there is** also **a matter that for its unwitting** performance one is **not liable** to bring **a sin-offering,** and nevertheless, **for its intentional** performance one is **liable to be executed by stoning. And what is that** case? It is the case of **driving a** laden **animal.**


###### Shabbat 154a:4
[Shabbat 154a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/154a:4)

רָבָא אֲחוּהּ דְּרַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אֲבוּהּ דְּרַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל. לְלִישָּׁנָא בָּתְרָא, קַשְׁיָא הָא דְּרַב אַכְשְׁרֵיהּ לְרַב מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל וּמַנְּיֵיהּ בְּפוּרְסֵי דְּבָבֶל. דִילְמָא תְּרֵי מָרִי בַּר רָחֵל הֲווֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava, the brother of Rav Mari bar Raḥel,** cites a different opinion with regard to the *halakha* of driving a laden animal on Shabbat, **and some say** that he was **the father of Rav Mari bar Raḥel** and stated this *halakha*. As an aside, the Gemara comments: **According to the latter version** above, that Rava was the father of Rav Mari bar Raḥel, the fact **that Rav** needed to **validate** the status of **Rav Mari bar Raḥel and** only then **appoint him as an official [*pursei*] of Babylonia is difficult.** This incident teaches that Rav Mari bar Raḥel’s father was not Jewish, and before he could be appointed his status required validation through the fact that his mother was Jewish. If Rav Mari bar Raḥel’s father was a sage named Rava, why was it necessary to validate his status by means of his mother’s lineage? The Gemara answers: **Perhaps there were two** people named **Mari bar Raḥel.** One was the son of a convert and a Jewish mother, and the other was the son of a Sage named Rava.


###### Shabbat 154a:5
[Shabbat 154a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/154a:5)

הֲוָה מַתְנִי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לִפְטוּר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמְחַמֵּר אַחֵר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In any event, that Sage **taught his *halakha* in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan to exempt** one who drives a laden animal, as **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who drives a** laden **animal on Shabbat is exempt from any** punishment.


###### Shabbat 154a:6
[Shabbat 154a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/154a:6)

בְּשׁוֹגֵג לָא מִחַיַּיב חַטָּאת — דְּהוּקְּשָׁה כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. בְּמֵזִיד נָמֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב — דִּתְנַן הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת בְּדָבָר שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת וְעַל זְדוֹנוֹ סְקִילָה. הָא אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת — אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ סְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: For driving the animal **unwittingly, he is not liable** to bring a **sin-offering** because **all of** the prohibitions in **the Torah were juxtaposed to** the prohibition of **idolatry,** from which the principle is derived that one is liable only for actions that he himself performed. And for driving the animal **intentionally, he is also not liable** to be executed by stoning, **as we learned** in the mishna: **One who desecrates Shabbat by** performing **a matter that for its unwitting** performance one is **liable** to bring **a sin-offering, and for its intentional** performance one is **liable to be executed by stoning.** By inference, for **a matter that for its unwitting** performance one is **not liable** to bring **a sin-offering, for its intentional** performance one is **not liable** to be executed by **stoning.**


###### Shabbat 154a:7
[Shabbat 154a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/154a:7)

בְּלָאו נָמֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב — דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לָאו שֶׁנִּיתַּן לְאַזְהָרַת מִיתַת בֵּית דִין, וְכׇל לָאו שֶׁנִּיתַּן לְאַזְהָרַת מִיתַת בֵּית דִין אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And similarly, **he is not** even **liable** to be flogged **for** violating a Torah **prohibition** for which the punishment is lashes. Even though the Torah explicitly warns against performing labor on Shabbat, **it is a prohibition that was** fundamentally **given,** not as a standard prohibition punishable by lashes, but rather **as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, and** for **any prohibition that was given as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment,** if the death penalty is not imposed for any reason, **one is not flogged for its** violation.