Shabbat

[the writing of] Shem as part of Simeon.  Labours forbidden in themselves' [i.e., 'them']-the primary labours,' [labours whose prohibition is derived] from others' [i.e., 'of them'] — derivatives; 'one transgression may involve liability for a number of sacrifices [i.e., 'one' = 'them'] — awareness of the Sabbath coupled with unawareness of [the forbidden nature of his] labours.  Many offences may involve but one sacrifice [i.e., 'them' = 'one'] — unawareness of the Sabbath coupled with awareness of [the forbidden nature of his] labours.  — Samuel does not accept the interpretation that 'one' [transgression] may involve liability for a number of sacrifices, while many offences may involve but one sacrifice. Raba asked R. Nahman: What if one forgot both?  — Said he, Surely he is unaware of the Sabbath; hence he incurs only one [sacrifice].  On the contrary, he has forgotten the labours; hence he is liable for each?  But said R. Ashi: We see: if he would desist [from these labours] on account of the Sabbath,  his unawareness is of the Sabbath, and he incurs only one sacrifice. While if he would desist on account of the labours,  his unawareness is [chiefly] of the labours, and he is liable for each. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Would he then desist on account of the Sabbath save because of the [forbidden nature of his] labours; and would he desist on account of [the forbidden nature of his] labours save because of the Sabbath?  Hence there is no difference. We learnt: The primary labours are forty less one. Now we pondered thereon, Why state the number? And R. Johanan answered: [It is to teach] that if one performs all of them in one state of unawareness he is liable for each separately. Now, it is well if you say that if one is unaware of both he is liable for each separately; then it is correct.  But if you maintain that this is [mainly] an unawareness of the Sabbath [and] entails only one sacrifice, then how is this possible?  [Presumably] by awareness of the Sabbath and ignorance of the [forbidden] labours. Now, that is well if he  agrees with R. Johanan, who ruled: As long as one is unaware of kareth, even if he deliberately offends in respect of the negative command:  then it is conceivable where he knows that the Sabbath is the object of a negative injunction. But if he agrees with R. Simeon b. Lakish, who maintained: He must offend unwittingly in respect of both the negative injunction and kareth, then wherein does he know that it is the Sabbath?  — He knew of boundaries, this being in accordance with R. Akiba. Raba said: If one reaped and ground [corn] of the size of a dried fig  in unawareness of the Sabbath but awareness in respect of the labours,  and then he again reaped and ground [corn] of the size of a dried fig in awareness of the Sabbath but unawareness in respect of the labours,  and then he was apprised of the reaping and/or grinding [performed] in unawareness of the Sabbath but awareness of the labours,  then he was apprised of the reaping and/or grinding [performed] in awareness of the Sabbath but unawareness in respect of the labours: