Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 1, scan section 58

one is only bound to bring one sin-offering for all transgressions, and sometimes one is bound to bring a sin-offering for each and every transgression separately. Said R. Jossi b. Hanina: " Why does R. Jossi explain that passage thus ? The verse should read ' one of them ' (Achath mehenoh), but in reality it reads ' of one of them ' (Meachath mehenoh), or it should read ' of one them ' (Meachath henoh), but it reads ' of one of them.' Therefore he explains that ' sometimes one is equal to many and sometimes many equal one.'"* Rabha questioned R. Na'hman: " How is it if one is igno- rant of both (of the day being Sabbath and the prohibition of the acts of labor on that day) ? Answered R. Na'hman: " Take one instance at a time. You say he was ignorant of the day being Sabbath; then he is bound to bring a sin-offering. How would it be if, on the contrary, I had said that he was ignorant of the prohibition of the acts of labor first? Would you say that he becomes liable to a sin-offering for each and every act performed?" Said R. Ashi: "Let us see from the man's actions. How would it be if one came to him and reminded him of its being Sabbath (without calling his attention to the fact that he was working) ? If the man immediately stopped his work, it is clear that he had actually forgotten that it was Sab- bath. If, however, the man was reminded by a third party that he was working (without having his attention called to the fact that it was Sabbath), and he immediately quit his work, it is evident that he was not cognizant of the prohibition of the acts of labor; hence he would become liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every act performed. Said Rabbina to R. Ashi: " What difference does it make ? If one is reminded that it is Sabbath and he quits work, he becomes aware that it is Sab- bath, and if he is reminded of his working he also becomes aware that the day is Sabbath; hence it makes no difference." Rabha said (supposing the following case happened: " One reaped and ground the equivalent (in size) of a fig on a Sabbath, * In that passajje there is a superfluous Mem (the Hebrew prefix meaning of ox from). Hence its literal translation is "of one of them." TRACT SABBATH 133 without knowing that it was Sabbath, and on another Sabbath did the same thing, knowing it was Sabbath, but not knowing that such acts of labor were prohibited ; then remembered that he had committed a transgression on the Sabbath through igno- rance of the day being Sabbath, and took a sheep and set it aside for a sin-offering. Suddenly he recollected that he had also committed a transgression on the other Sabbath, through his ignorance of the prohibition of the acts of labor. What would the law be in such a case ? I can say that the sheep set aside for a sin-offering for the first transgression suffices also for the second, although in reality two sin-offerings were required to atone for the second transgression. The one sin-offering would suffice, because it is in truth not brought for forgetting the Sab- bath, but for reaping and grinding; the reaping in the first instance carries with it the reaping in the second, as also the grinding in the first instance carries with it the grinding in the second, and one sin-offering atones for all. Assuming, however, that in the second instance (when he forgot about the prohibition of the acts of labor) he (at some later time) recollected only having reaped (but forgot that he also ground), and having set aside the sin-offering he became liable for on account of his transgression in the first instance (when he forgot about the Sabbath), he atones for the reaping and grinding on the first Sabbath and for the reaping on the second Sabbath, but not for the grinding on the second Sab- bath; hence (after also recollecting that he had ground) he must bring an additional sin-offering. Abayi, however, says: The one sin-offering atones for all, because the grinding, which he atones for in the first instance, also carries with it the grinding in the second instance. Why so ? For the reason that in both instances the acts atoned for are analogous. (When a sin-offer- ing was brought, a confession was made. In citing the sin com- mitted in the first instance grinding was mentioned and applies also to the grinding in the second instance. Therefore no addi- tional sin-offering is necessary.) It was taught: If one has eaten tallow (which is prohibited) on two different occasions, and at both times the tallow was the equivalent (in size) of an olive (or larger) ; and afterward he was reminded of the first occason, and later on of the second occa- sion also, what is the law in his case ? R. Johanan says: He must bring two sin-offerings. Why so ? Because he recol- lected the transgressions at different times. Resh Lakish, 134 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. however, says: He need bring only one sin-offering. What is R, Johanan's reason ? Because it is written [Lev. iv. 28]: " For his sin, which he hath committed," and he adduces there- from that for every sin committed one must bring a separate sin-offering, and Resh Lakish holds according to the passage [ibid. 26], " Concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him," and claims that it being one and the same sin, only one sin- offering is sufficient. But what will Resh Lakish do with the verse, " For his sin which he hath committed" ? That refers to the sin-offering which had already been brought, and there- fore could not apply to a later sin. And what about R. Johanan and the passage, " Concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven " ? R, Johanan explains this as follows: If a man ate tallow equiva- lent (in size) to an olive and a half, and later ate another piece the size of half an olive. Afterward he recollected having eaten tallow, but thought that it was the size of one olive, might some not say that the remaining piece eaten in the first instance should be added to the piece eaten in the second instance, and thus constitute another piece the equivalent (in size) to an olive, and make him liable for another sin-offering ? Therefore the passage which means: After once having obtained forgiveness for the transgression on the first occasion the second cannot be counted in with the first. It was taught: If one intended to pick up a thing detached (for instance, a knife that had fallen in a row of vegetables), and while doing so (accidentally) cut off one of the growing vege- tables, he is free.* If, however, he intended to cut something lying on (but not attached to) the ground, and instead cut off something growing out of (attached to) the ground, Rabha * In the Tract Kriroth the reason of the man's non-culpability is explained as fol- lows : It is written [Lev. iv. 23], " If now his sin wherein he has sinned come to his