## Shabbat Daf 68b

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

אֲבָל לֹא שְׁכֵחָהּ, מַאי — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל מְלָאכָה וּמְלָאכָה? אַדְּתָנֵי הַיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא שַׁבָּת וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל מְלָאכָה וּמְלָאכָה, לִיתְנֵי ״הַיּוֹדֵעַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת״, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הָא! אֶלָּא, מַתְנִיתִין כְּשֶׁהִכִּיר וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁכַח, וּדְרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל נָמֵי כְּהִכִּיר וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁכַח דָּמֵי. וְהָכִי אִיתְּמַר: רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ אֲפִילּוּ תִּינוֹק שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה בֵּין הַגּוֹיִם וְגֵר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר לְבֵין הַגּוֹיִם — כְּהִכִּיר וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁכַח דָּמֵי, וְחַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty: **But** if **he did not forget** the essence of Shabbat, and he knows that today is Shabbat, **what** would the *halakha* be? Certainly he would be **liable for each and every prohibited labor.** If so, **instead of teaching** the *halakha*: **One who knows that it is Shabbat and performs many labors on multiple *Shabbatot* is liable for each and every labor, let** the mishna **teach** the *halakha*: **One who knows the essence of Shabbat** is liable for each and every labor that he performs **and all the more so** that **one** who is aware that today is Shabbat would be liable for each labor. **Rather,** when **our mishna** refers to forgetting, it is referring to a case **where he knew and ultimately forgot. And** the case described by **Rav and Shmuel also** has the same legal status **as one who knew and ultimately forgot. And it was stated as follows:** It was **Rav and Shmuel who both said: Even a child who was taken captive among the gentiles and a convert who converted among the gentiles** have the same legal status **as one who knew and ultimately forgot, and** they are **liable** to bring a sin-offering for their unwitting transgression, even though they never learned about Shabbat.


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

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: דַּוְקָא הִכִּיר וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁכַח — אֲבָל תִּינוֹק שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה בֵּין הַגּוֹיִם וְגֵר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר לְבֵין הַגּוֹיִם — פָּטוּר. מֵיתִיבִי: כְּלָל גָּדוֹל אָמְרוּ בַּשַּׁבָּת: כׇּל הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ עִיקַּר שַׁבָּת, וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. כֵּיצַד? — תִּינוֹק שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה לְבֵין הַגּוֹיִם, וְגֵר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר בֵּין הַגּוֹיִם, וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. וְחַיָּיב עַל הַדָּם אַחַת, וְעַל הַחֵלֶב אַחַת, וְעַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אַחַת, וּמוֹנְבַּז פּוֹטֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** it was **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who both said:** He is liable to bring a sin-offering **specifically** if **he knew** of the essence of Shabbat **and ultimately forgot. However, a child who was taken captive among the gentiles and a convert who converted among the gentiles** are **exempt** from bringing a sin-offering. They have the legal status of one who performed the prohibited labor due to circumstances beyond his control. The Gemara **raises an objection** from that which was taught in a *baraita*: **They stated a significant principle with regard to** the *halakhot* of **Shabbat: One who forgets the essence of Shabbat,** i.e., one who does not know that there is a mitzva of Shabbat in the Torah, **and performs many prohibited labors on multiple *Shabbatot* is liable** to bring **only one** sin-offering. **How so?** With regard to **a child who was taken captive among the gentiles and a convert who converted among the gentiles** and does not know the essence of Shabbat; **and** if **he performed many prohibited labors on multiple *Shabbatot,* he is only liable** to bring **one sin-offering** for all his unwitting transgressions. **And he is liable** to bring **one** sin-offering **for** all **the blood** he unwittingly ate before he learned of the prohibition; **and one** sin-offering **for** all **the forbidden fat** that he ate; **and** one **for** all the **idolatry** that he worshipped. **And Munbaz,** one of the Sages, **deems** him **exempt** from bringing any sacrifice.


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

וְכָךְ הָיָה מוֹנְבַּז דָּן לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הוֹאִיל וּמֵזִיד קָרוּי ״חוֹטֵא״ וְשׁוֹגֵג קָרוּי ״חוֹטֵא״, מָה מֵזִיד שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעָה — אַף שׁוֹגֵג שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הֲרֵינִי מוֹסִיף עַל דְּבָרֶיךָ: אִי מָה מֵזִיד שֶׁהָיְתָה הַיְּדִיעָה בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה — אַף שׁוֹגֵג שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעָה בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Munbaz deliberated before Rabbi Akiva as follows: Since** one who commits a transgression **intentionally is called** a **sinner** in the Torah **and** one who commits a transgression **unwittingly is called** a **sinner, just as** one who commits the transgression **intentionally** is liable for punishment only in a case **where he had** prior **knowledge** that it was prohibited, **so too,** one who commits the transgression **unwittingly** is liable to bring a sin-offering only in a case **where he had** prior **knowledge.** However, the action of one who had no prior knowledge at all is not considered unwitting; rather, it has the same legal status as an action performed due to circumstances beyond one’s control, and he is completely exempt. **Rabbi Akiva said to him: I will elaborate upon your statement** and follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion and thereby test the validity of your reasoning. **If so, just as** one who commits the transgression **intentionally** is liable for punishment only in a case **where** he had **the awareness** that he was sinning **at the time** that he performed **the action, so too,** with regard to one who commits the transgression **unwittingly,** say that he is only liable to bring a sin-offering in a case **where he had awareness** that he was sinning **at the time** that he performed **the action.** If that is the case, it is no longer an unwitting transgression.


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

אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁהוֹסַפְתָּ. אָמַר לוֹ: לִדְבָרֶיךָ, אֵין זֶה קָרוּי שׁוֹגֵג אֶלָּא מֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Munbaz **said to him: Yes,** there is nothing unusual about that. In my opinion it is correct **and all the more so** now that **you have elaborated** upon my statement. Awareness at the time that one is performing the action is one of the criteria of my definition of an unwitting transgression, as will be explained below. Rabbi Akiva **said to him: According to your statement,** since while performing the action one is aware that it is prohibited, his action **is not called unwitting; rather,** it is a full-fledged **intentional** transgression.


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

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא ״כֵּיצַד תִּינוֹק״. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל נִיחָא. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, קַשְׁיָא! אָמְרִי לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לָא מִי אִיכָּא מוֹנְבַּז דְּפָטַר? אֲנַן דְּאָמְרִינַן כְּמוֹנְבַּז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Returning to our issue: **In any case,** as an example of one who forgot the essence of Shabbat, **it was taught: How so? A child** who was taken captive. **Granted,** according **to** the opinion of **Rav and Shmuel** it works out **well,** as they consider the legal status of a child taken captive equal to that of one who unwittingly forgot the essence of Shabbat. **However, according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,** who consider the legal status of a child taken captive equal to that of one who committed the action due to circumstances beyond his control and is therefore exempt, **it is difficult** because he is liable to bring a sin-offering according to the opinion of the Rabbis in the *baraita*. **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** could have **said to you: Isn’t there** the opinion of **Munbaz** who **deemed him exempt** in that case? **We stated** our opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Munbaz.**


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

מַאי טַעְמָא דְמוֹנְבַּז? דִּכְתִיב: ״תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לָעֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ ״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּיָד רָמָה״ — הִקִּישׁ שׁוֹגֵג לְמֵזִיד. מָה מֵזִיד שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעָה, אַף שׁוֹגֵג שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the rationale for** the opinion of **Munbaz?** Is it based entirely upon the fact that the Torah refers to sinners, both intentional and unwitting, as sinners? The Gemara explains that the source for the opinion of Munbaz is **as it is written:** “The native of the children of Israel, and the stranger who lives among them, **there shall be one law for you, for one who acts unwittingly”** (Numbers 15:29), **and adjacent to it** is the verse: **“And the person who acts with a high hand,** whether a native or a stranger, he blasphemes God, and that soul shall be cut off from the midst of his people” (Numbers 15:30). The Torah **juxtaposes unwitting** transgression **to intentional** transgression. **Just as** one who commits the transgression **intentionally** is only liable in a case **where he had** prior **knowledge, so too,** one who commits the transgression **unwittingly** is only liable in a case **where he had** prior **knowledge.**


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

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״תּוֹרָה אַחַת״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לְהוּ לְכִדְמַקְרֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לִבְרֵיהּ: ״תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לָעֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה״, וּכְתִיב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what do the Rabbis do with** the juxtaposition derived from **that** verse: **One law?** The Gemara answers: **They require it for that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught his son.** It is written: **“There shall be one law for you, for one who acts unwittingly.” And it is written:**