Shabbos Chart #14

BRINGING A "KORBAN" FOR AN
UNINTENTIONAL TRANSGRESSION OF SHABBOS

		(A) RASHI(1)	(B) TOSFOS(2)
1)	INTENDED TO PERFORM ANOTHER ACTION ENTIRELY ("Mis'asek b'Ma'aseh Acher": e.g. tried to pick up a knife, and cut a grape instead)	Patur	Patur
2)	INTENDED TO PERFORM THE SAME ACTION IN A MANNER THAT IS PERMITTED ("Shnei Gufin, v'Echad me'Hem shel Heter": e.g. he wanted to cut a grape from a detached cluster, and he picked a grape from a cluster that was still attached)(3)	Rava : Patur Abaye: Chayav	Patur
3a)	THE ACTION WHICH HE INTENDED TO DO WAS PROHIBITED -- AND HE KNEW IT ("Shnei Gufin, Shneihem Shel Isur": e.g. he intended to pick one grape, but accidentally picked a different one)	Chayav(4)	Patur
3b)	THE ACTION WHICH HE INTENDED TO DO WAS PROHIBITED -- BUT HE DID NOT KNOW IT, DUE TO A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE *PHYSICAL* CIRCUMSTANCES ("Chisaron Yedi'ah ha'Gorem l'Shinuy b'Ma'aseh": e.g. he thought this grape was detached but it actually was attached)	Chayav(7)	Rava : Patur Abaye: Chayav(5)
4)	THE ACTION WHICH HE INTENDED TO DO WAS PROHIBITED -- BUT HE DID NOT KNOW IT DUE TO A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE *HALACHIC* CIRCUMSTANCES ("Chisaron Yedi'as ha'Isur:" e.g. he did not know that it is Shabbos, or that the Torah prohibits picking grapes on Shabbos)(6)	Chayav	Chayav

==========
FOOTNOTES:
==========
(1) THE GENERAL RULE IS AS FOLLOWS: According to RASHI, Abaye and Rava argue only in a case where he intended to do an action *which in reality is permitted*, and he ended up doing the action in a manner which is forbidden (e.g. he intended to cut a detached plant, and instead he cut an attached plant). However, when he intended to do an action which in reality is forbidden, he is not considered Misa'asek, but rather he is considered Shogeg and is Chayav to bring a Korban Chatas (e.g. he intended to cut a plant which *he thought* was detached, but was really attached; alternatively, he intended to cut a particular attached plant, and he instead cut another attached plant -- see rows 3a and 3b in the chart).
(2) According to TOSFOS, Abaye and Rava argue only in a case where a person lacked a full understanding of the physical situation, and because of that performed a different action than he had originally intended ("Chisaron Yedi'ah ha'Gorem l'Shinuy Ma'aseh"). For example, he thought that this plant was detached and he cut it, but in reality it was attached. However, if he intended to do an action upon one item and he ended up doing an action on *another* item, both Abaye and Rava agree that he is Patur (rows 2 and 3a in the chart).
See Insights to Kerisus 19b, where we explained in detail the argument between RASHI and TOSFOS in their respective approaches to the Gemara there.
(3) So, too, when he intended to throw an object two Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim and he accidentally threw it four Amos (which appears later on this Amud, 73a), or when he intended to throw four Amos thinking that this area was Reshus ha'Yachid and it was in reality Reshus ha'Rabim.
(4) This is the inference that Tosfos (DH Niskaven) makes from the words of Rashi (DH Niskaven). According to Rashi, this is actually a matter of dispute between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua (in Kerisus), and Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that one is Patur in such a case, because "Meleches Machsheves Asrah Torah," the Torah only forbids an *intentionally performed* Melachah, as we explained in Kerisus (Insights to Daf 18, 2:a:(3)).
(5) This is the way Rabeinu Tam (cited by Tosfos) explains. According to his explanation, when Abaye and Rava argue (73a) regarding a case where he intended to throw two Amos and accidentally threw four Amos, it must be a case where he intended to throw from here to the wall, and he *thought* that the distance was two Amos, while in reality it was four Amos. (RITVA 73a)
(6) For example, the cases in the Mishnah at the beginning of the Perek.
(7) This seems to be the intention of Rashi (DH Niskaven), based on the inference of Tosfos (DH Niskaven) from this Rashi (see footnote #4 above).