Shabbat

and when ye shall err, and not observe all these commandments;  and it is written, And the soul that doeth aught with a high hand … [that soul shall be cut off]: thus they are all assimilated to idolatry: just as there it is something for the wilful transgression of which kareth  is incurred, and for the unwitting transgression a sin-offering is incurred,  so for everything the wilful transgression of which involves kareth, its unwitting transgression involves a sin-offering. But according to Monabaz, wherein lies his non-wilfulness?  E.g., if he was ignorant in respect of the sacrifice.  But the Rabbis hold that ignorance in respect of the sacrifice does not constitute ignorance. Now according to the Rabbis, in respect to what is ignorance [required]? R. Johanan said: As long as one errs in respect to kareth, even if he wilfully sins in respect of the negative command;  while Resh Lakish maintained: He must offend unwittingly in respect of the negative injunction and kareth. Raba said, What is R. Simeon b. Lakish's reason? Scripture saith, [And if any one of the common people sin unwittingly, in doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded] not to be done, and be guilty:  hence he must err both as to the negative injunction and its attendant kareth.  And R. Johanan: how does he employ this verse adduced by R. Simeon b. Lakish? — He utilizes it for what was taught: [And if any one] of the common people: this excludes a mumar.  R. Simeon b. Eleazar said on the authority of R. Simeon:  [… sin unwittingly in doing any of the things which the Lord hath commanded] not to be done, and be guilty: he who would refrain  on account of his knowledge, brings a sacrifice for his unwitting offence; but he who would not refrain on account of his knowledge cannot bring a sacrifice for his unwitting offence. We learnt: The primary forms of labour are forty less one.  Now we pondered thereon, Why state the number?  And R. Johanan replied: [To teach] that if one performs all of them in a single state of unawareness,  he is liable [to a sin-offering] for each. Now, how is this possible? [Surely only] where he is aware of the Sabbath but unconscious of [the forbidden nature of] his labours.  As for R. Johanan, who maintained that since he is ignorant in respect of kareth, though fully aware of the negative injunction, [his offence is unwitting], it is well: it is conceivable e.g., where he knew [that labour is forbidden on] the Sabbath by a negative injunction. But according to R. Simeon b. Lakish, who maintained that he must be unaware of the negative injunction and of kareth, wherein did he know of the Sabbath?  — He knew of [the law of] boundaries,  this being in accordance with R. Akiba. Who is the authority for the following which was taught by the Rabbis: If one is unaware of both,  he is the erring sinner mentioned in the Torah;  if one wilfully transgresses in respect of both, he is the presumptuous offender mentioned in the Torah. If one is unaware of the Sabbath but conscious of [the forbidden character of] his labours or the reverse, or if he declares, 'I knew that this labour is forbidden, but not whether it entails a sacrifice or not, he is culpable? With whom does this agree? With Monabaz. Abaye said: All agree in respect to an 'oath of utterance'  that a sacrifice is not incurred on account thereof unless one is unaware of its interdict.  'All agree': who is that? R. Johanan?  But that is obvious! When did R. Johanan say [otherwise], where there is [the penalty of] kareth; but here [in the case of an 'oath of utterance'] that there is no [penalty of] kareth, he did not state [his ruling]? — One might argue: Since liability to a sacrifice [here] is an anomaly,  for we do not find in the whole Torah that for a [mere] negative injunction  one must bring a sacrifice, whilst here it is brought; hence even if he is unaware of the [liability to a] sacrifice, he is culpable: