Shabbat

[If they hold] a round cake of pressed figs and carry it out into the street, or a beam, and carry it out into the street, — R. Judah said: If one cannot carry it out and both carry it out, they are culpable; if not, they are not culpable. R. Simeon ruled: Even if one cannot carry it out and both carry it out, they are not culpable: for this [reason] it is stated, 'in his doing', [to teach that] if a single person does it, he is liable; whereas if two do it, they are exempt. Wherein do they differ? In this verse: And if one person of the common people shall sin unwittingly, in his doing, [etc.]. R. Simeon holds: Three limitations are written: 'a person' shall sin, 'one' shall sin,' in his doing' he shall sin.  One excludes [the case where] one [person] removes an article [from one domain] and another deposits [it in the other domain]; a second is to exclude [the case of] each being able [separately to perform the action]; and the third is to exclude where neither is able [alone]. R. Judah [holds]: one excludes [the case where] one [person] removes and another deposits; the second is to exclude [the case of] each being able; and the third is to exclude [the case of] an individual who acts on the ruling of Beth din.  But R. Simeon is consistent with his view, for he maintains: An individual who acts on the ruling of Beth din is liable.  While R. Meir [argues]: Is it then written, 'a person shall sin', 'one shall sin', 'in his doing he shall sin'! [Only] two limitations are written:  one excludes [the case where] one removes and another deposits, and the other excludes [the case of] an individual who acts on the ruling of Beth din. The Master said. 'If one is able but the other is not, all agree that he is culpable.' Which one is culpable? — Said R. Hisda: He who is able. For if the one who is unable, — what does he do then?  Said R. Hamnuna to him: Surely he helps him? Helping is no concrete [act], replied he. R. Zebid said on Raba's authority: We learnt likewise: If he [a zab] is sitting on a bed and four cloths are under the feet of the bed,  they are unclean, because it cannot stand on three;  but R. Simeon declares it clean.  If he is riding on an animal and four cloths are under its feet, they are clean, because it can stand on three. But why so? surely each helps the other? Hence it must be because we maintain that helping is not a concrete [act]. Said Rab Judah of Diskarta:  After all I may tell you that helping is a concrete [act]; but here it is different because it [the animal] removes it [the foot] entirely [from the ground].  But since it alternatively removes one foot and then another, let it be as a zab who turns about.  Did we not learn, If a zab is lying on five benches or five hollow belts:  if along their length, they are unclean;  but if along their breadth, they are clean. [But] if he is sleeping, [and] there is a doubt that he may have turned [about upon them],  they are unclean? Hence  it must surely be because we say, helping is no concrete [act]. R. Papi said in Raba's name, We too learnt thus.