## Shabbat Daf 68a

###### Shabbat 68a:1
[Shabbat 68a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/68a:1)

אַב מְלָאכָה וּמְלָאכָה. הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה אַחַת, אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and every primary category of labor** that he performed. **One who performs numerous prohibited labors** subsumed under a **single** category **of labor is liable** to bring **only one sin-offering.**


###### Shabbat 68a:2
[Shabbat 68a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/68a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא תְּנָא ״כְּלָל גָּדוֹל״? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָבָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי: ״עוֹד כְּלָל אַחֵר אָמְרוּ״, תְּנָא ״כְּלָל גָּדוֹל״. וְגַבֵּי שְׁבִיעִית נָמֵי, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָבָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי: ״עוֹד כְּלָל אַחֵר אָמְרוּ״, תְּנָא ״כְּלָל גָּדוֹל״. וְהָא גַּבֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״כְּלָל אַחֵר אָמְרוּ״, וְלָא תָּנֵי ״כְּלָל גָּדוֹל״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara attempts to clarify the language of the mishna and asks: **Why did** the mishna **teach** the phrase: **A significant principle? If you say** it is **because** of the following reason, it is problematic.
Here, because the *tanna* **wants to teach** in a mishna later in the chapter with regard to a matter that includes two *halakhot* employing the term: **Furthermore,** they stated **another principle;** therefore, in this mishna, which relates to a greater number of *halakhot*, he **taught** employing the term: **A significant principle.** 
**And with regard to the Sabbatical Year as well, because** in a later mishna (*Shevi’it* 7:2) the *tanna* **wants to teach: Furthermore, another principle,** at the beginning of the chapter he **taught** employing the phrase: **A significant principle.** There too, the choice of language is understood. 
**However, with regard to** the *halakhot* of **tithes,** where the mishna (*Ma’asrot* 1:1) states two principles one after the other, the *tanna* **taught** later in the same mishna: And furthermore, they stated **another principle, and** even so, at the beginning of the mishna the *tanna* **did not teach: A significant principle,** opting instead to say simply: They stated a principle.


###### Shabbat 68a:3
[Shabbat 68a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/68a:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין: שַׁבָּת וּשְׁבִיעִית דְּאִית בְּהוּ אָבוֹת וְתוֹלָדוֹת — תְּנָא ״גָּדוֹל״, מַעֲשֵׂר דְּלֵית בֵּהּ אָבוֹת וְתוֹלָדוֹת, לָא תְּנָא ״כְּלָל גָּדוֹל״. וּלְבַר קַפָּרָא, דְּתָנֵי ״כְּלָל גָּדוֹל״ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר, מַאי אָבוֹת וּמַאי תּוֹלָדוֹת אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said** that the term: A significant principle, is not dependent on the existence of another principle; rather, it is dependent on the significance of the principle. Therefore, with regard to the *halakhot* of **Shabbat and the Sabbatical Year, which include primary categories and subcategories,** the *tanna* **taught** in the mishna: **A significant** principle. With regard to the *halakhot* of **tithes, which do not include primary categories and subcategories** and all its *halakhot* are on equal footing, **he did not teach** employing the term: **A significant principle.** The Gemara asks: **And** according **to** the variant reading of the mishna taught by **bar Kappara, who taught** the phrase: **A significant principle, with regard to tithes, what primary categories and subcategories are there** with regard to tithes?


###### Shabbat 68a:4
[Shabbat 68a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/68a:4)

אֶלָּא לָאו הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, גָּדוֹל עוֹנְשָׁהּ שֶׁל שַׁבָּת יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁל שְׁבִיעִית, דְּאִילּוּ שַׁבָּת אִיתַהּ בֵּין בְּתָלוּשׁ בֵּין בִּמְחוּבָּר, וְאִילּוּ שְׁבִיעִית בְּתָלוּשׁ לֵיתַהּ בִּמְחוּבָּר אִיתַהּ. וְגָדוֹל עוֹנְשָׁהּ שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית יוֹתֵר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר, דְּאִילּוּ שְׁבִיעִית אִיתַהּ בֵּין בְּמַאֲכַל אָדָם בֵּין בְּמַאֲכַל בְּהֵמָה, וְאִילּוּ מַעֲשֵׂר בְּמַאֲכַל אָדָם אִיתֵהּ בְּמַאֲכַל בְּהֵמָה לֵיתֵהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, isn’t this the reason** the Mishna employs the term: A significant principle; because it is significant relative to other principles? The scope of the materials whose use warrants **punishment for** desecrating **Shabbat is greater than** the scope of the materials whose use warrants punishment for desecrating **the Sabbatical Year. As** the *halakhot* of **Shabbat are** in effect **both with regard to** plants that are **detached** from the ground and **with regard to** those that are **attached, while** the *halakhot* of **the Sabbatical Year with regard to detached** plants, they **are not** in effect, but **with regard to attached** plants they **are** in effect. **And** the scope of the materials whose use warrants **punishment** for desecration **of the Sabbatical Year are greater than** the scope of the materials whose use warrants punishment for violating the *halakhot* **of tithes. As,** by Torah law, the *halakhot* of **the Sabbatical Year are** in effect **both with regard to human food** and **with regard to animal food, while** the *halakhot* of **tithes are** in effect **with regard to human food,** but **with regard to animal food** they **are not** in effect.


###### Shabbat 68a:5
[Shabbat 68a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/68a:5)

וּלְבַר קַפָּרָא דְּתָנֵי ״כְּלָל גָּדוֹל״ בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר: גָּדוֹל עוֹנְשׁוֹ שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁל פֵּיאָה, דְּאִילּוּ מַעֲשֵׂר אִיתֵהּ בִּתְאֵנָה וְיָרָק וְאִילּוּ פֵּיאָה לֵיתַהּ בִּתְאֵנָה וְיָרָק. דִּתְנַן, כְּלָל אָמְרוּ בַּפֵּיאָה: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֶל וְנִשְׁמָר וְגִידּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ וּלְקִיטָתוֹ כְּאַחַת וּמַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם — חַיָּיב בְּפֵיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** according **to** the opinion of **bar Kappara, who taught** the phrase: **A significant principle, with regard to tithes** as well: **The** scope of the materials for which one warrants **punishment** for violating the *halakhot* of **tithes is greater than** the scope of the materials for which one warrants punishment for violating the *halakhot* of ***pe’a*. As,** by rabbinic law, the obligation of **tithes is** in effect **with regard to** both **figs and vegetables, while** the obligation of ***pe’a* is not** in effect **with regard to figs and vegetables. As we learned** in a mishna in tractate *Pe’a*: **They stated a principle with regard to *pe’a*: Anything that is food, and is protected, and grows from the ground, and is gathered as one, and one brings it in** to storage **to preserve is obligated in *pe’a*.**


###### Shabbat 68a:6
[Shabbat 68a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/68a:6)

אוֹכֶל — לְמַעוֹטֵי סְפִיחֵי סְטִיס וְקוֹצָה. וְנִשְׁמָר — לְמַעוֹטֵי הֶפְקֵר. וְגִידּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ — לְמַעוֹטֵי כְּמֵיהִין וּפִטְרִיּוֹת. וּלְקִיטָתוֹ כְּאַחַת — לְמַעוֹטֵי תְּאֵנָה. וּמַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם — לְמַעוֹטֵי יָרָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that which is excluded by each criterion in the mishna. **Food, to exclude the aftergrowths of woad [*satis*] and madder.** As these plants are used for dyeing and not for food, the obligation of *pe’a* does not apply to them. **And protected, to exclude ownerless** crops, which by definition are not protected. **And grows from the ground, to exclude truffles and mushrooms,** which, unlike other plants, do not draw sustenance from the ground. **And is gathered as one, to exclude** the **fig** tree whose fruit is gathered throughout an extended period, as the figs do not all ripen together. **And one brings it in** to storage **to preserve; to exclude vegetables,** which cannot be stored for lengthy periods.


###### Shabbat 68a:7
[Shabbat 68a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/68a:7)

וְאִילּוּ גַּבֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר תְּנַן, כְּלָל אָמְרוּ בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֶל וְנִשְׁמָר וְגִידּוּלוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ — חַיָּיב בְּמַעֲשֵׂר. וְאִילּוּ לְקִיטָתוֹ כְּאַחַת וּמַכְנִיסוֹ לְקִיּוּם לָא תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**While, with regard to tithes, we learned** in a mishna: **They stated a principle with regard to tithes: Anything that is food, and is protected, and grows from the ground is obligated in tithes; we did not learn** with regard to tithes, the following criteria: **Gathered as one, and which one brings in** to storage **to preserve.** Apparently, figs and vegetables are obligated in tithes, making the scope of the materials obligated in tithes greater than the scope of those obligated in *pe’a*.


###### Shabbat 68a:8
[Shabbat 68a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/68a:8)

רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מַתְנִיתִין בְּתִינוֹק שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה לְבֵין הַגּוֹיִם, וְגֵר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר לְבֵין הַגּוֹיִם. אֲבָל הִכִּיר וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁכַח — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת. תְּנַן: ״הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת״, לָאו מִכְּלָל דְּהַוְיָא לֵיהּ יְדִיעָה מֵעִיקָּרָא?! לָא, מַאי ״כׇּל הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת״ — שֶׁהָיְתָה שְׁכוּחָה מִמֶּנּוּ עִיקָּרָהּ שֶׁל שַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna discusses an individual who forgets the very essence of Shabbat. The Gemara seeks to understand how a Jew could forget the very existence of Shabbat. It was **Rav and Shmuel who both said: Our mishna** is referring **to** both **a child who was taken captive among the gentiles** and never educated **and a convert who converted among the gentiles** and never learned the *halakhot* of Shabbat. **However,** one who once **knew** of the essence of Shabbat **and ultimately forgot is liable for each and every Shabbat,** as we learned in the mishna with regard to one who knows the essence of Shabbat. The Gemara seeks to clarify this approach. **We learned** in our mishna: **One who forgets the essence of Shabbat. Doesn’t** this phrase indicate **by inference that he was aware** of Shabbat **originally?** In order to forget one must have previously been aware. This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav and Shmuel. The Gemara refutes this: **No, what is** the meaning of: **One who forgets the essence of Shabbat? That the essence of Shabbat** was always **forgotten from him,** i.e., he never knew it.


###### Shabbat 68a:9
[Shabbat 68a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/68a:9)

אֲבָל הִכִּיר וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁכַח מַאי — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת? אַדְּתָנֵי הַיּוֹדֵעַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת, לִיתְנֵי ״הִכִּיר וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁכַח״, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הָא! מַאי ״הַיּוֹדֵעַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת״ — מִי שֶׁהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ עִיקָּרָהּ שֶׁל שַׁבָּת וּשְׁכֵחָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **However,** based on that understanding, in the case of **one who knew** the essence of Shabbat **and ultimately forgot, what** is the *halakha*? Is he **liable for each and every Shabbat?** If so, **instead of** the mishna **teaching** the next *halakha*: **One who knows the essence of Shabbat and performs many labors on multiple *Shabbatot*** is **liable to** bring a sin-offering **for each and every Shabbat, let it teach: One who knew** the essence of Shabbat **and ultimately forgot and, all the more so, one** who knows the essence of Shabbat would be liable for each Shabbat. The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, **what** is the meaning of the phrase: **One who knows the essence of Shabbat? One who** once **knew the essence of Shabbat and** has now **forgotten it.**