## Shabbat Daf 70b

###### Shabbat 70b:1
[Shabbat 70b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/70b:1)

שֵׁם מִשִּׁמְעוֹן. ״הֵנָּה״ — אָבוֹת, ״מֵהֵנָּה״ — תּוֹלָדוֹת. ״אַחַת שֶׁהִיא הֵנָּה״ — זְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת. ״הֵנָּה שֶׁהִיא אַחַת״ — שִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת. וּשְׁמוּאֵל, ״אַחַת שֶׁהִיא הֵנָּה״ וְ״הֵנָּה שֶׁהִיא אַחַת״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
only ***shem*,** part of the word, the letters *shin* and *mem*, **from Shimon. Them** refers to one who performed **the primary categories of labor. Of them** refers to one who performed **subcategories** of prohibited labors. **One that is them** refers to one transgression with multiple punishments, as in a case where his action was **intentional** with regard to **Shabbat** in that he was aware that it was Shabbat, **and** his action **was unwitting** with regard to the **prohibited labors** in that he was unaware that the labors were prohibited. In that case, he is liable for each primary category of labor. **Them that are one** refers to several transgressions with one punishment, as in a case where his action was **unwitting** with regard to **Shabbat** in that he was unaware that it was Shabbat, **and** his action **was intentional** with regard to the **prohibited labors** in that he was aware that the labors were prohibited. In that case, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei has a source for the division of Shabbat labors. Why doesn’t **Shmuel** derive the *halakha* from that source? The Gemara answers: Shmuel did **not derive one that is them and them that are one** from the verse.


###### Shabbat 70b:2
[Shabbat 70b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/70b:2)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: הֶעְלֵם זֶה וָזֶה בְּיָדוֹ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי הֶעְלֵם שַׁבָּת בְּיָדוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אַדְּרַבָּה, הֲרֵי הֶעְלֵם מְלָאכוֹת בְּיָדוֹ וְחַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חָזֵינַן, אִי מִשּׁוּם שַׁבָּת קָא פָרֵישׁ — הֲרֵי הֶעְלֵם שַׁבָּת בְּיָדוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, וְאִי מִשּׁוּם מְלָאכָה קָפָרֵישׁ — הֲרֵי הֶעְלֵם מְלָאכוֹת בְּיָדוֹ וְחַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: כְּלוּם פֵּרֵישׁ מִשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם מְלָאכוֹת, כְּלוּם פֵּרֵישׁ מִמְּלָאכוֹת אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שַׁבָּת — אֶלָּא לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: What is** the *halakha* **if** a person had a **lapse of awareness of both this,** Shabbat, **and that,** a particular labor? **He said to him: He** had a **lapse of awareness** with regard to **Shabbat and is liable to** bring **only one** sin-offering. Rava said to him: **On the contrary, he** had a **lapse of awareness** with regard to **prohibited labors, and** he should be **liable for each and every** labor that he performed. **Rather, Rav Ashi said: We see, if** it is **due to awareness of Shabbat that he desists** from performing the labor when he is told what day it is, then, apparently, it was a **lapse of awareness** with regard to **Shabbat, and he is liable for only one. And if** it is **due to awareness of the prohibited labor that he desists,** then, apparently, it was a **lapse of awareness** with regard to the **labors and he is liable for each and every one. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Does** he **desist due to Shabbat** for any reason **other than because** he knows that the **labors** are prohibited? **And** similarly, **does** he **desist from** performing the **labors** when told that it is prohibited for any reason **other than because** he knows that it is **Shabbat?** When one desists from labor when he is told that it is Shabbat, it is because he understands that the labor he is performing is prohibited on Shabbat. Similarly, when one desists from his labor when he is told that the labor is prohibited, it is because he understands that the day is Shabbat. **Rather, there is no difference** between the cases, and in both he is considered unwitting with regard to Shabbat.


###### Shabbat 70b:3
[Shabbat 70b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/70b:3)

תְּנַן: אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת, וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מִנְיָנָא לְמָה לִי? וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָן כּוּלָּן בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא הֶעְלֵם זֶה וָזֶה בְּיָדוֹ חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת — שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ הֶעְלֵם שַׁבָּת בְּיָדוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ — בִּזְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further discusses the matter from a different perspective. **We learned** in a mishna: The number of **primary categories of prohibited labors** on Shabbat is **forty-less-one,** which the mishna proceeds to list. **And we discussed** this mishna: **Why do I need** this **tally** of forty-less-one? Isn’t merely listing the prohibited labors sufficient? **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The tally was included to teach **that if he performed all** 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, if you say** that one who had a **lapse of awareness of both this and that is liable for each and every one, it works out well. However, if you say** that since one who had a **lapse of awareness of this and that** had a **lapse of awareness** with regard to **Shabbat,** and **he is liable to** bring **only one** sin-offering, under what circumstances **can you find** a case where one would be liable for unwittingly violating all thirty-nine labors? It must be in a case where, **with regard to Shabbat,** his actions were **intentional,** as he was aware that it was Shabbat, **and,** with regard to the prohibited **labors,** his actions were **unwitting,** as he was unaware that these labors were prohibited on Shabbat.


###### Shabbat 70b:4
[Shabbat 70b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/70b:4)

הָנִיחָא אִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁגַג בְּכָרֵת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵזִיד בְּלָאו, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּיָדַע לֵיהּ לְשַׁבָּת בְּלָאו. אֶלָּא אִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁגּוֹג בְּלָאו וְכָרֵת — דְּיָדַע לֵיהּ לְשַׁבָּת בְּמַאי? דְּיָדַע לֵהּ בִּתְחוּמִין, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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. **You find** that possibility in a case **where 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 that prohibition is by Torah law.


###### Shabbat 70b:5
[Shabbat 70b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/70b:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: קָצַר וְטָחַן כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת בְּשִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת, וְחָזַר וְקָצַר וְטָחַן כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת בִּזְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת, וְנוֹדַע לוֹ עַל קְצִירָה וּטְחִינָה שֶׁל שִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת, וְחָזַר וְנוֹדַע לוֹ עַל קְצִירָה וְעַל טְחִינָה שֶׁל זְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** One who **reaped and ground** grain in the measure of **a dried fig-bulk,** the measure that determines liability for the labors of reaping and grinding on Shabbat, while in performing those actions he was **unwitting** with regard to **Shabbat and intentional** with regard to the **prohibited labors.** He was unaware that it was Shabbat, but he was aware that the labors were prohibited. **And** he did not realize that he had sinned until he **again reaped and ground** grain in the measure of **a dried fig-bulk,** while in performing those actions he was **intentional** with regard to **Shabbat and unwitting** with regard to the **prohibited labors.** He was aware that it was Shabbat, but he was unaware that the labors were prohibited. **And** afterward **he became aware** that he had performed the labors of **reaping and grinding** while **unwitting** with regard to **Shabbat and intentional** with regard to the **prohibited labors.** He set aside a sin-offering to atone for his sin, based on the principle that he need set aside only one sin-offering even though he performed two primary categories of labor in the same lapse of awareness. **And** afterward **he became aware** that he had performed the labors of **reaping and grinding** while **intentional** with regard to **Shabbat and unwitting** with regard to the **prohibited labors.** For performing two categories of prohibited labor unwittingly, reaping and grinding, one should be liable to bring two sin-offerings.