Shabbat

he does not teach what involves no liability and is [also] permitted.  But the last clause, where no liability is involved, yet it is forbidden, is indeed difficult.  (But is there in the whole [of the laws relating to] Sabbath [an action described as involving] no liability [yet] permitted: did not Samuel say: Everything [taught as] involving no liability on the Sabbath, involves [indeed] no liability, yet it is forbidden, save these three, which involve no liability and are [also] permitted: [viz.,] the capture of a deer,  the capture of a snake, and the manipulation of an abscess?  — Samuel desires to say this only of exemptions where an act is performed; but as for exemptions where no act [at all] is done, [of such] there are many?) Yet still there are twelve? — Non-liable acts whereby one can come to the liability of a sin-offering are counted; those whereby one cannot come to the liability of a sin-offering are not counted. 'BOTH ARE EXEMPT?' But between them a [complete] action is performed! — It was taught: [And if anyone] of the common people sin unwittingly, in doing [any of the things etc.]:  only he who performs the whole of it [a forbidden action], but not he who performs a portion thereof. [Hence] if a single person performs it, he is liable; if two perform it, they are exempt. It was stated likewise: R. Hiyya b. Gamada said: It emanated  from the mouth of the company  and they said: 'In doing': if a single person performs it, he is liable: if two perform it, they are exempt. Rab asked Rabbi: If one's neighbour loads him with food and drink, and he carries them without, what is the law? Is the removing  of one's body like the removing of an article from its place, and so he is liable; or perhaps it is not so? He replied: He is liable, and it is not like his hand.  What is the reason? — His body is at rest  whereas his hand is not at rest.