Once again Rava and Abaye have a disagreement
on Saturday’s daf TB Shabbat 71. How many sin offerings does a person have to
bring to the Temple when he performs several of the prohibited labors on Shabbat?
What fascinated me about this sugiya is how hypothetical whole discussion is.
How could a person not know that it is Shabbat and still perform these labors knowing
that they are prohibited and then turn around know it is Shabbat but did not
realize the same labors are forbidden! Secondly, Rava and Abaye lived in
Babylonia well after the destruction of the second Temple. After the Romans
destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, sacrifices could no longer be
offered.
How many sin
sacrifices a person had to bring revolves around the concepts of intentionally
and unwittingly and when a person was informed that he had transgressed. Does
he have to bring a sin offering for each transgression or can he bring one sin
offering for several transgressions? Below is the entire discussion. Read it
carefully and don’t worry if you don’t catch on at first. It took me several
passes, before I understood the intricacies of the debate.
“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.
“Nevertheless, in that case, the sin-offering that atoned
for the unwitting act of reaping, which he performed when his action was
unwitting with regard to Shabbat, draws with it atonement for the second
unwitting act of reaping, which he performed when his action was
unwitting with regard to the prohibited labor, and for which he also was liable
to bring a sin-offering. And similarly, the sin-offering that atoned for
the unwitting act of grinding, which he performed when his action was
unwitting with regard to Shabbat, draws with it atonement for the
unwitting act of grinding, which he performed when his action was
unwitting with regard to the prohibited labor. Since the offering was
sacrificed after he had committed both transgressions, he attains atonement
with one sacrifice, even though he performed several forms of the transgression
in a single lapse of awareness. However, if the order of events in that
case was different in that he became aware of reaping performed when his
action was intentional with regard to Shabbat and his action was unwitting
with regard to the prohibited labors, and he set aside an offering to
atone for his unwitting transgression, and only afterward he became aware that
he had performed the labors of reaping and grinding when his actions were
unwitting with regard to Shabbat, the sin-offering that he brings for the reaping
draws with it atonement for the previous reaping and the concomitant
grinding. As far as the lapse of awareness with regard to Shabbat is
concerned, reaping and grinding are considered like one sin, and atonement for
one atones for the other. And the parallel grinding that he performed
together with the latter reaping remains in its place, i.e., he does not
attain atonement for that transgression. When he becomes aware of it, he brings
a separate offering for atonement.
“Abaye said:
Grinding also draws the latter grinding with it, as the
designation of grinding is one. Since he attained atonement for one act of
grinding, atonement is attained for the second act of grinding as well, as they
were performed in one lapse of awareness, and he became aware only after the
acts were completed. The Gemara asks: And is Rava of the opinion that
atonement can be attained by means of drawing? Wasn’t it stated that
there is a dispute with regard to that matter in a case where one unwittingly ate
two olive-bulks of forbidden fat in one lapse of awareness, e.g., he
ate two pieces of forbidden fat from different parts of an animal in the belief
that they were permitted fat? One is liable to bring a sin-offering for that
transgression. And in a case where he became aware that one of
the olive-bulks was forbidden fat, and then ate a third olive-bulk
while still in the midst of the lapse of awareness of the second
piece of forbidden fat, i.e., he had not yet become aware that the second of
the original olive-bulks was indeed prohibited and after eating the third
olive-bulk, he became aware of both the second and the third pieces of fat. Rava
said: If he brought a sacrifice for the first, atonement is
attained for the transgressions of the first and second olive-bulks,
since he ate both in one lapse of awareness. However, atonement is not
attained for the third because awareness of the first olive-bulk
interposes
“If he brought a
sacrifice for the third after he became aware that he had sinned, atonement
is attained for the transgressions of the third and second, since
both were performed in one lapse of awareness. However, atonement is not
attained for the transgression of the first, which occurred in a
separate lapse of awareness. If he brought a sacrifice for the middle one,
atonement is attained for all, since both the first and third olive-bulks
have a lapse of awareness common with the second. Abaye said: Even if he
brought a sacrifice for any one of them, atonement is attained for all
of them by means of drawing. Since he attained atonement for one of the
olive-bulks, that atonement draws with it atonement for the other olive-bulks
with which it shared a lapse of awareness. In any case, apparently Rava is not
of the opinion that atonement draws with it atonement. How, then, does he say
that atonement for reaping draws with it atonement for other acts of reaping?
The Gemara answers: After he heard this halakha from Abaye,
he adopted it.” (Sefaria.org translation)
I appreciate the
idea that after a debate a great scholar like Rava could change his mind and accept
Abaye’s position. Nevertheless, Rambam in Mishneh Torah, Sefer Korbonot, Hilkhot
Shiggigot, chapter 7 Halkhah 10 decides Jewish law according to Rava. I guess
at times it doesn’t add up.
No comments:
Post a Comment