📖 SATURDAY PRAYER: NETZACH -YESHIVAT HAVERIM יְשִׁיבָה חברים – BABYLONIAN TALMUD p132

READING: BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND DAWN OF SATURDAY

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.'” 1
Rabha questioned R. Na’hman: “How is it if one is ignorant 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 sinoffering.
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 Sabbath. 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 Sabbath, 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, 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 ignorance 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 sinoffering
for the first transgression suffices also for the second, although in reality two sinofferings
were required to atone for the second transgression. The one sin-offering would
suffice, because it is in truth not brought for forgetting the Sabbath, 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.