1)

GREAT GENERAL RULES OF SHABBOS

(a)

(Mishnah): (We discuss liability for Melachah on Shabbos b'Shogeg, i.e. he forgot that it is Shabbos, or that this Melachah is forbidden, or both of these.) There is a great general rule of Shabbos - anyone who forgot Shabbos entirely and did many Melachos on many Shabbosos is liable only one Korban;

1.

If he knew about Shabbos, and did many Melachos on many Shabbosos (each time he forgot that it is Shabbos), he is liable one Korban for every Shabbos;

2.

If he remembered that the day is Shabbos, and did many Melachos on many Shabbosos (he forgot that these Melachos are forbidden), he is liable only one Korban for every Av Melachah;

3.

One who does many Melachos resembling one Melachah (they are Toldos (derivatives) of it) is liable only one Korban.

(b)

(Gemara) Question: Why is this called a great general rule?

(c)

Answer #1: This is because another Mishnah (75B) teaches another general rule;

1.

Likewise, in Maseches Shevi'is a general rule is called great for this reason.

(d)

Objection: There are two general rules of Ma'aser, neither is called great (Tosfos ha'Rosh - even though one of them is more encompassing than the other)!

(e)

Answer #2 (R. Yosi bar Avin): Shabbos and Shevi'is both have Avos and Toldos, therefore the general rule is called great; Ma'aser does not have Avos and Toldos.

(f)

Objection: Bar Kapara taught a great general rule regarding Ma'aser [in his version of Tosefta], even though it does not have Avos and Toldos!

(g)

Answer #3: [We say that a general rule is great if the Mitzvah is more stringent than another Mitzvah for which a general rule was taught.] The punishment for Shabbos is greater than that for Shevi'is - [the Isur Melachah of] Shabbos applies both to attached and detached [produce], but that of Shevi'is applies only to attached (Tosfos; Rashi - Shabbos applies both to what was attached or detached at the start of Shabbos, but [Kedushas] Shevi'is applies only to what was attached at the start of Shevi'is);

1.

The punishment for Shevi'is is greater than that for Ma'aser - Shevi'is applies both to produce eaten by people and by animals, but Ma'aser applies only to produce eaten by people.

(h)

According to Bar Kapara, the punishment for Ma'aser is greater than that for Pe'ah - Ma'aser applies (most Meforshim - mid'Rabanan) to dates and vegetables, but Pe'ah does not.

1.

(Mishnah): Pe'ah must be left from any food with the following properties - people guard it, it grows from the ground, it is harvested at once, it may be stored for a long time.

2.

It says 'food' to exclude Sefichim (things that grew by themselves, e.g. from seeds which fell) of safflower or woad (a dye);

3.

'People guard it' excludes Hefker; 'it grows from the ground' excludes mushrooms and truffles; 'it is harvested at once' excludes figs; 'it may be stored for a long time' excludes vegetables.

4.

(Mishnah): Ma'aser must be taken from any food that grows from the ground and is guarded.

i.

We do not require that it is harvested at once, or that it may be stored for a long time!

2)

ONE WHO NEVER KNEW ABOUT SHABBOS

(a)

Version #1 (Rav and Shmuel): Our Mishnah discusses someone who [never learned about Shabbos, e.g.] a baby captured by Nochrim [and he grew up among them], or a convert who converted [in front of three Yisraelim, but continued to live] among Nochrim - but one who knew about Shabbos and forgot it is liable for every Shabbos.

(b)

Question (Mishnah): Anyone who forgot Shabbos entirely...

1.

This implies that he once knew about Shabbos!

(c)

Answer: No, it means that Shabbos was entirely forgotten from him (he never knew about it).

(d)

Inference: This implies that one who once knew about Shabbos and later forgot is liable for every Shabbos.

(e)

Question: If so, why does it say 'If he knew about Shabbos, and did many Melachos on many Shabbosos, he is liable for each Shabbos' - it should teach 'This is if he never knew about Shabbos, but if he once knew about Shabbos and later forgot, he is liable for each', and all the more so if he did not forget!

(f)

Answer: Indeed, when it says 'If he knew about Shabbos [and did many Melachos..]', it means, he once knew about Shabbos and later forgot.

68b----------------------------------------68b

(g)

Inference: Had he not forgotten, he would be liable for every Melachah.

(h)

Objection: If so, why does it say 'If he remembered that the day is Shabbos, and did many Melachos on many Shabbosos, he is liable once for every Av Melachah' - it should teach about one who knows about Shabbos [and forgot], all the more so this case!

(i)

Retraction: Indeed, we must say that the Mishnah discusses one who knew about Shabbos and forgot, and the case of Rav and Shmuel has the same law as this;

(j)

Version #2 (Rav and Shmuel): Even a baby captured by Nochrim or one who converted among Nochrim is like one who knew about Shabbos and forgot, he is liable. (end of Version #2)

(k)

(R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): One who knew about Shabbos and forgot is liable - but a baby captured by Nochrim or one who converted among Nochrim is exempt.

(l)

Question (Beraisa): There is a great general rule of Shabbos - anyone who forgot Shabbos entirely and did many Melachos on many Shabbosos is liable only one Korban:

1.

The case is, a baby was captured by Nochrim or a convert converted among Nochrim; he is also liable one Korban for eating blood, and one for Chelev, and one for idolatry [and for every other Chiyuv Chatas he transgressed].

2.

Munvaz exempts.

3.

Munvaz: [Regarding Shevu'as ha'Edus, one who transgresses] b'Mezid is called Chotei, just like Shogeg - just like Mezid knew [that he sinned], also Shogeg [is liable only if he once] knew.

4.

R. Akiva: If so, you should say that just like Mezid knew at the time he sinned, also Shogeg who knows at the time he sins [is liable]!

5.

Munvaz: Answer: Indeed, I say this! (This will be explained.)

6.

R. Akiva: If so, he is Mezid, not Shogeg!

7.

Summation of question: The Beraisa says that a baby captured by Nochrim is liable - this is like Rav and Shmuel, it opposes R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish!

(m)

Answer: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish hold like Munvaz.

(n)

Question: What is Munvaz' reason? (Rashi - why does he exempt one who never knew - he cannot simply learn Shogeg from Mezid, they are opposites! Ramban - why does he obligate one who knew at the time he sinned?)

(o)

Answer: After "Torah Achas Yihyeh Lachem la'Oseh bi'Shgagah" it says "Veha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh b'Yad Ramah" - this equates Shogeg to Mezid;

1.

Just like Mezid knew, also Shogeg [is liable only if he] knew (Rashi; Ramban - just like Mezid knew, also Shogeg [is liable even though he] knew).

(p)

Question: How do Chachamim expound "Torah Achas..."?

(q)

Answer: They expound like R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught to his son:

1.

(R. Yehoshua be Levi): It says "Torah Achas Yihyeh Lachem la'Oseh bi'Shgagah" - this refers to idolatry, whose severity is like "...Kol ha'Mitzvos";

2.

Right after "Torah Achas..." it says "Veha'Nefesh Asher Ta'aseh b'Yad Ramah" - this equates the entire Torah to idolatry;

i.

Just like idolatry is punishable by Kares b'Mezid and one brings a Chatas b'Shogeg, Chatas is brought for all such Mitzvos (transgressed through action).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF