Commentary page

Shabbat 68b

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Shabbat 68b

Shabbat 68b. The full printed text of this folio side — 7 numbered segments, about 288 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 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.

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.

Segment 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.

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.

Segment 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!

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.

Segment 4

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

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.

Segment 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.

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.

Segment 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.

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.

Segment 7

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

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:

Shabbat 68b

Shabbat 68b

Rashi

Tosafot

Rav Nissim Gaon

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Penei Yehoshua

Chiddushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text