Keritot

R. Oshaia raised an objection: [We have learnt:] R. SIMEON SHEZURI AND R. SIMEON SAID: THEY DID NOT DISPUTE REGARDING TRANSGRESSIONS OF THE SAME DENOMINATION, WHEN [IT IS AGREED THAT] HE IS LIABLE. ABOUT WHAT DID THEY DISPUTE? ABOUT TRANSGRESSIONS OF DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS: R. ELIEZER DECLARES HIM LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING, AND R. JOSHUA DECLARES HIM EXEMPT. And what did R. Judah [in the Mishnah] say? That their dispute was in the case of a person who intended to pick grapes and he picked figs, or black [grapes] and he gathered white ones. Now, are not figs and grapes, or black grapes and white grapes, of two different denominations? Is this not, then, identical with [the views of] R. Simeon and R. Simeon Shezuri? What then does R. Judah come to teach us? Hence you must say that they differ concerning unpurposed action, R. Judah holding that one is liable for unpurposed action; whereas R. Simeon and R. Simeon Shezuri hold that one is exempt for unpurposed action!1 — No; all agree that for unpurposed action one is exempt; they differ rather in this point: R. Simeon Shezuri holds that if the purpose escaped the gatherer's mind [and he erred] in respect of the same denomination, all agree that he is liable, and that their dispute is in the case [where the error related to] two different denominations; whilst R. Judah maintains that they differ both in the instance of one denomination and in that of two denominations. Raba said, They differ in the matter of sequence.2 As it has been taught: If there were before a person [on the Sabbath] two burning [or extinguished]3 candles and he intended to extinguish the one but extinguished the other, or to kindle the one but kindled the other, he is exempt;4 if he intended first to kindle the one and then to extinguish the other, and he first extinguished and then kindled,5 if with one breath6 he is liable, if with two breaths he is exempt. But is this not obvious? — I might have thought that since his design was not realized, seeing that he wanted first to kindle and then to extinguish, but in his act [we might regard it as if] the extinguishing was done first and then the kindling, he should accordingly be exempt; therefore we are told [that this is not so]; for although [the kindling] did not precede [the extinguishing], neither did it follow. 7 Our Rabbis taught: If one removed coals [from a burning pile] on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering; R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok: He is liable to two [offerings], because he extinguished the upper coals and kindled the lower ones.8 How is this case to be understood? If he intended to extinguish as well as to kindle, what is the reason of the one who exempts him [from the second offering]? And if he did not intend to kindle, what is the reason of the one who holds him liable to two? — R. Eleazar and R. Hanina both explained the case as follows: He intended to extinguish the upper coals knowing that this would set the lower ones ablaze.9 The first Tanna holds that one is exempt for any kindling which is to his disadvantage;10 while R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok holds him liable. R. Johanan also said: It speaks of a blacksmith. Said R. Johanan: Until now the reason for this law has not been found.11 Ammi b. Abin and R. Hanania b. Abin both explained [the case as follows:] forgotten, implying, however, that for unpurposed action all agree that one was exempt. R. Judah, on the other hand was of the view that the dispute was in the case of unpurposed action concerning different kinds of fruit, but that concerning the same kind all would agree that he is liable. R. Judah is thus in contradiction to Samuel. did it in the reverse order. extinguish the other, but he did it in the reverse order. other. bottom of the container and cool off, but those at the bottom of the pile flare up. His action therefore involves both extinguishing and kindling. big coal lumps for his smithy. The burning of the lower coals was not to his advantage at all. Shab. 106a. blacksmith) the reason etc.’.