Our Mishna taught the "significant principle" regarding forgetting Shabbat. The Gemara begins by questioning what a significant principle might be. First, it might be that we learn another less significant principal. Second, the principal might contain subcategories. The rabbis discuss violations of the halachot of pe'a and tithing to introduce the second principle: anything that is food and is protected and grows from the ground is obligated in tithes. Thus figs and vegetables are obligated in tithes more than the scope of those obligated in pe'a.
The rabbis discuss who could actually forget Shabbat. If we are talking about one who was taken captive among gentiles and a convert who converted to Judaism among gentiles, how could that person "forget" what they did not know? Are we expected to understand the essence of Shabbat without having been taught about this special day? Or are we talking about a person who once knew about Shabbat but then forgot the halachot?
Next, the Gemara considers those who knew that the day was Shabbat but forgot some of the halachot. One who performs many labours on multiple Shabbatot is liable for each labour. Using other situations involving Munbaz, the rabbis consider the implications about liability when actions might be done when the laws have been forgotten compared with when there was an intentional transgression.
The issue here is one that is familiar to the rabbis - and familiar to us in modern civil law. How much does intention matter when we are considering punishment for a transgression?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment