## Shabbat Daf 72b

###### Shabbat 72b:1
[Shabbat 72b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/72b:1)

נִתְכַּוֵּין לְהַגְבִּיהַּ אֶת הַתָּלוּשׁ, וְחָתַךְ אֶת הַמְחוּבָּר — פָּטוּר. לַחְתּוֹךְ אֶת הַתָּלוּשׁ, וְחָתַךְ אֶת הַמְחוּבָּר, רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חַיָּיב. רָבָא אָמַר פָּטוּר — דְּהָא לָא מִיכַּוֵּון לַחֲתִיכָה דְאִיסּוּרָא. אַבָּיֵי אֲמַר חַיָּיב — דְּהָא קָמִיכַּוֵּין לַחֲתִיכָה בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One who intended to lift** a plant **detached** from the ground on Shabbat **and** mistakenly **severed** a plant still **attached** to the ground, which under other circumstances constitutes performance of the prohibited labor of reaping, **is exempt** from bringing a sin-offering for his mistaken act, since he did not intend to perform an act of cutting. One who performs an action unawares [*mitasek*], i.e., he had no intention to perform the act at all, incurs no liability whatsoever. One who intended **to cut** a **detached** plant **and** unwittingly **severed** a plant still **attached** to the ground, **Rava said:** He too **is exempt. Abaye said: He is liable.** The Gemara elaborates: **Rava said** that **he is exempt because** he **did not intend** to perform an act of **prohibited severing.** He intended to perform an action completely permitted on Shabbat. He had no misconception with regard to the *halakhot* of Shabbat. It was merely a mistaken act. And **Abaye said** that **he is liable because he intended** to perform a **standard** act **of cutting.** Since he intended to perform that act, and he carried out his intent, the Torah characterizes it as unwitting and not as unawares.


###### Shabbat 72b:2
[Shabbat 72b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/72b:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: חוֹמֶר שַׁבָּת מִשְּׁאָר מִצְוֹת, וְחוֹמֶר שְׁאָר מִצְוֹת מִשַּׁבָּת. חוֹמֶר שַׁבָּת מִשְּׁאָר מִצְוֹת, שֶׁהַשַּׁבָּת עָשָׂה שְׁתַּיִם בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת. וְחוֹמֶר שְׁאָר מִצְוֹת מִשַּׁבָּת — שֶׁבִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת שָׁגַג בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּין — חַיָּיב, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: From where do I** derive to **say this** opinion? **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: There is **a stricture** with regard to the prohibitions of **Shabbat** that is greater **than** the stricture with regard to **other mitzvot, and a stricture** with regard to **other mitzvot** that is greater **than** the stricture with regard to **Shabbat.** The Gemara elaborates: **A stricture** with regard to **Shabbat** that is greater **than** the stricture with regard to **other mitzvot** is **that,** with regard to **Shabbat, one who performed two** transgressions on Shabbat, even if he did so **in** the course of **one lapse of awareness, is liable** to bring a sin-offering **for each and every one, which is not** the case **in other mitzvot.** In other mitzvot, if an individual commits a transgression several times in the course of one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. **And a stricture** with regard to **other mitzvot** that is greater **than** the stricture with regard to **Shabbat** is **that,** with regard to **other mitzvot,** one who performs an act **unwittingly without intent is liable, which is not** the case **with** regard to **Shabbat.** Apparently, the phrase unwittingly without intent refers to the case disputed by Abaye and Rava. Therefore, this is proof for Rava’s opinion that, with regard to Shabbat, one who acts unawares, i.e., whose action resulted from involvement in another matter and who had no intention to perform an action that is prohibited, is not considered to have performed an unwitting act.


###### Shabbat 72b:3
[Shabbat 72b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/72b:3)

אָמַר מָר: חוֹמֶר שַׁבָּת מִשְּׁאָר מִצְוֹת, שֶׁהַשַּׁבָּת עָשָׂה שְׁתַּיִם בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דַּעֲבַד קְצִירָה וּטְחִינָה, דִּכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי שְׁאָר מִצְוֹת אֲכַל חֵלֶב וְדָם. הָכָא תַּרְתֵּי מִיחַיַּיב, וְהָכָא תַּרְתֵּי מִיחַיַּיב! אֶלָּא שְׁאָר מִצְוֹת דְּלָא מִיחַיַּיב אֶלָּא חֲדָא הֵיכִי דָּמֵי — דַּאֲכַל חֵלֶב וְחֵלֶב. דִּכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת — דַּעֲבַד קְצִירָה וּקְצִירָה, הָכָא חֲדָא מִיחַיַּיב, וְהָכָא חֲדָא מִיחַיַּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Before the Gemara discusses the *baraita* in the context of the dispute between Abaye and Rava, the Gemara analyzes its text. **The Master said** in the *baraita*: **A stricture** with regard to **Shabbat** that is greater **than** the stricture with regard to **other mitzvot** is **that,** with regard to **Shabbat, one who performed two** transgressions on Shabbat, even **in** the course of **one lapse of awareness, is liable** to bring a sin-offering **for each and every one, which is not** the case **with** regard to **other mitzvot.** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If you say that he** unwittingly **performed** acts of **reaping and grinding** on Shabbat, **the corresponding** situation with regard to **other mitzvot** is a case where **he ate forbidden fat and blood.** If so, there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot. **Here** one **is liable to** bring **two** sin-offerings **and here** one **is liable to** bring **two** sin-offerings. **Rather, what are the circumstances** in **other mitzvot where he is liable to** bring **only one** sin-offering? It is in a case **where** he **ate forbidden fat and** again ate **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. However, in that case too there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot. **Here** one **is liable to** bring **one** sin-offering, **and here** one **is liable to** bring **one** sin-offering.


###### Shabbat 72b:4
[Shabbat 72b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/72b:4)

לְעוֹלָם דַּעֲבַד קְצִירָה וּטְחִינָה, וּמַאי ״מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת״ — אַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְכִדְרַבִּי אַמֵּי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: זִיבַּח וְקִיטֵּר וְנִיסֵּךְ בְּהַעֲלָמָה אַחַת — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Actually,** it is referring to a case **where** one **performed** acts of **reaping and grinding. And what** is the meaning of the phrase: **Which is not** the case **with** regard to **other mitzvot?** It is not referring to all mitzvot in general. It is referring to the prohibition of **idolatry,** which is comprised of separate component prohibitions, each of which incurs independent liability. This is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami said: One who sacrificed** to idolatry, **and burned** incense before it, **and poured** wine as a libation before it in the course of **one lapse of awareness is liable to** bring **only one** sin-offering. That is the ruling, even though, had he performed those rites separately, he would be liable to bring a sin-offering for each. That, then, is the stricture of other mitzvot relative to Shabbat.


###### Shabbat 72b:5
[Shabbat 72b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/72b:5)

בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתַּהּ — בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה? אֵימָא סֵיפָא: חוֹמֶר בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת, שֶׁבִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת שָׁגַג בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּין — חַיָּיב, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשַׁבָּת — הַאי שָׁגַג בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּין דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא כְּסָבוּר בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת הוּא וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ — הֲרֵי לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם. וְאֶלָּא דְּחָזֵי אִנְדְּרָטָא וְסָגֵיד לֵהּ, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּקַבְּלֵהּ עֲלֵיהּ בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ — מֵזִיד הוּא. וְאִי דְּלָא קַבְּלֵהּ עֲלֵיהּ בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ — לָאו כְּלוּם הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In what** case **did you establish** the *baraita*, **in** the case of **idolatry?** If so, **state the latter** clause and determine whether that explanation applies there as well. The latter clause states: **A stricture** with regard to **other mitzvot** that is greater than the stricture with regard to Shabbat is **that,** with regard to **other mitzvot,** one who performs an act **unwittingly without intent is liable, which is not** the case **with** regard to **Shabbat.** One who acts unawares with no intent to perform a prohibited act is not considered to have performed an unwitting act. **That** case of performing an act **unwittingly without intent with** regard to **idolatry, what are the circumstances? If you say** that it is referring to a case **where he thought** that **it was a synagogue and bowed to it,** and it turned out that he bowed to idolatry, he committed no transgression. Since **his heart was** directed **toward Heaven,** it is not even an unwitting transgression. **Rather,** it is referring to a case **where he saw a statue [*andarta*]** in the image of the king **and bowed to it. What are the circumstances? If** the *baraita* is referring to a case **in which** he bowed because **he accepted** that image **upon himself as a god, he** worshipped idolatry **intentionally** and is not liable to bring a sin-offering. **And if he did not accept** that image **upon himself as a god** and bowed merely in deference to the monarch, **it is meaningless** and is not an act of idolatry.


###### Shabbat 72b:6
[Shabbat 72b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/72b:6)

אֶלָּא מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה. הָנִיחָא לְאַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר חַיָּיב. אֶלָּא לְרָבָא דְּאָמַר פָּטוּר, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר ״מוּתָּר״. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשַׁבָּת דְּפָטוּר — לִגְמָרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is referring to a case where one bowed **due to love** of someone who requested that he bow before the statue **and due to fear** of someone coercing him to do so. He is under the impression that unless he wholeheartedly has the intention to worship the idol, there is no prohibition involved. **This** works out **well according to** the opinion of **Abaye, who said:** One who bows due to love or fear **is liable** to bring a sin-offering. **However, according to** the opinion of **Rava, who said:** One who bows due to love or fear **is exempt** from bringing a sin-offering, **what can be said?** According to Rava’s opinion, the problem remains. There is no case in which there is a difference between the ruling in the case of idolatry and the ruling in the case of Shabbat. **Rather,** it is referring to a case **where one says** to himself that this **is permitted.** He is under the impression that idolatry is permitted, and his unwitting act was the result of ignorance, not forgetfulness. The statement in the *baraita*: **Which is not** the case **with** regard to **Shabbat,** is referring to one who was under the impression that performing labors on Shabbat is permitted. One **who** performs prohibited labors under those circumstances **is completely exempt.**


###### Shabbat 72b:7
[Shabbat 72b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/72b:7)

עַד כָּאן לָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן, אֶלָּא אִי לְחַיּוֹבֵי חֲדָא, אִי לְחַיּוֹבֵי תַּרְתֵּי, אֲבָל מִפְטְרֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
That conclusion contradicts another statement of Rava. With regard to one who is unaware of both the essence of Shabbat and the individual prohibited labors, **Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman only whether to deem him liable to** bring **one or whether to deem him liable to** bring **two** sin-offerings. **However,** the possibility **to exempt him completely** did **not** enter Rava’s mind. That explanation of the *baraita* is incompatible with Rava’s opinion.