Ketubot

and [at the same time] tore the silk garments of his neighbour. The [above] text [stated]: 'R. Hisda said: R. Nehunia b. hakaneh admits that, if someone stole [forbidden] fat belonging to his neighbour and ate it, he is bound [to pay], because he was guilty of stealing before he came to [the transgression of] the prohibition with regard to [forbidden] fat.' Is it to say that he differs from R. Abin? For R. Abin said: If someone threw an arrow [on Sabbath] from the beginning of four [cubits] to the end of four [cubits] and it  tore silk garments in its passage  he is free [from payment],  for the taking up  was necessary for the putting down:  Now here  also the 'lifting up' was necessary for the eating.  — Now, is this so?  There  'the putting down' is impossible without the 'taking up'; but here  the eating is possible without the 'lifting up', for, if he likes, he can bend down and eat.  Or: there,  if he wants to take it back, he cannot take it back;  but here,  he can put it back.  — What is the [practical] difference between the one answer and the other answer? — The difference is: when someone carried  a knife in the public road  and it  tore silk garments in its passage: according to the answer that the 'putting down' is impossible without the 'taking up', here  also the 'putting down' is impossible without the 'taking up'.  And according to the answer that he cannot take it back, here  he can take it back. The text [stated above]: 'R. Abin said: If someone threw [on Sabbath] an arrow from the beginning of four [cubits] to the end of four [cubits] and it tore silk garments in its passage he is free [from payment], for the "taking up" was necessary for the "putting down".' R. Bibi b. Abaye raised the following objection: If someone stole a purse  on Sabbath he is bound [to pay],  because he was guilty of stealing before he came to the [transgression of] the prohibition which is punishable with stoning,  but if he dragged it along he is free [from payment], because the desecration of the Sabbath and the stealing come at the same time.  And why?  Here also we should say: The lifting up is necessary for the carrying out!  — Here we treat of a case when he lifted it up in order to hide it and changed his mind and carried it out.  [But] is he, in this case, guilty [of desecrating the Sabbath]? Did not R. Simeon say [that] R. Ammi said in the name of R. Johanan: If someone was removing objects from one corner to another corner and changed his mind and carried them out he is free [of the transgression of the desecration of the Sabbath] because the taking up was not from the outset for that [purpose]? — Do not say: in order to hide it, but say: in order to carry it out, only it speaks here of a case when he [paused and] remained standing [for a while].  For what purpose did he remain standing? If to adjust the cord on his shoulder, this is the usual way.  — No; [we speak of a case] where he stood still in order to rest. But how would it be if [he had remained standing] in order to adjust the cord on his shoulder?