אִם יִרְצֶה הַשֵּׁם
A companion to Shabbos 152b–154a. Rabbah is doing one thing with one verse. The three cases are three other chilulim that Rava uses to test that thing. Here it is without extra language.
The act
A man walks behind his loaded donkey in the street on Shabbos. The donkey carries the load four amos. The man makes it go. That is מְחַמֵּר mechamer.
Question: is he chayav the way a man is chayav when he carries four amos?
If yes: שׁוֹגֵג shogeg (he forgot it was Shabbos, or forgot this is forbidden) brings a חַטָּאת chatas. מֵזִיד mezid (he knew, witnesses warned him) brings סְקִילָה sekilah.
If no: maybe there is still a לָאו lav, maybe only an עֲשֵׂה aseh that the animal rest, maybe nothing of that form.
Rabbah’s heqqesh
The verse (Shemos 20:10):
לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כָל מְלָאכָה אַתָּה וּבְהֶמְתֶּךָ
lo ta’aseh kol melachah atah u-vhemtecha
“Do not do any melachah, you and your animal.”
Rabbah reads the two words as one comparison. בְּהֶמְתּוֹ דּוּמְיָא דִּידֵיהּ behemto dumya didei. His animal is like him.
What is like what. When he does a melachah with his own body, shogeg is chatas and mezid is sekilah. So when the melachah is done by the animal he is driving, shogeg is chatas and mezid is sekilah.
That is the whole heqqesh. The verse put atah and u-vhemtecha in one sentence so the punishments would copy from the man onto the driving.
Rav Miller ztl treats this as Rabbah’s line. On some printed pages the same line is written amar Rava. The sevara does not change.
Why anyone argues
Hotza’ah (carrying) needs עֲקִירָה akirah and הַנָּחָה hanachah from the body that moves the object. Here the donkey lifts and walks. The man only drives. So the question under the heqqesh is simple:
Does “you and your animal” mean the animal’s walk is his melachah?
Or does it only mean he must see to it that the animal rests, without making him chayav chatas and sekilah for the animal’s legs?
Rabbah: the first. Rava: the second.
Rava’s first answer. The body has to do the act
Bamidbar 15:29–30: תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לָעֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה torah achas yihyeh lachem la-oseh bi-shgagah, and next to it the mezid of avodah zarah.
From there they said: every chatas in the Torah is learned from avodah zarah. For avodah zarah he is chayav only if עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפוֹ oseh ma’aseh be-gufo: the act is in his own body. Bowing, slaughtering, burning. Not only a thought, and not only causing someone else to bow.
Rava: mechamer fails that test. The donkey does the ma’aseh. The man says “go.” So there is no chatas. And if there is no chatas of that form, the heqqesh also cannot give sekilah.
What this does to Rabbah. Rabbah compared animal to man inside Shabbos. Rava says a wider comparison already told every lav in the Torah: no chatas unless the body did the work. The Shabbos verse cannot give a chatas the rest of the Torah refused.
Rava’s second answer. The Mishnah has extra words
Sanhedrin: הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת בְּדָבָר שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת וְעַל זְדוֹנוֹ סְקִילָה
hamechallel es ha-Shabbos be-davar she-chayavin al shigegaso chatas ve-al zedono sekilah.
Not “one who desecrates Shabbos.” “One who desecrates Shabbos in a matter whose shogeg is chatas and whose mezid is sekilah.”
Those extra words mean there is some chilul Shabbos of the Torah that is not chatas and not sekilah.
If Rabbah is right, mechamer has both punishments. Then every real chilul has both. The extra words have nothing to point at. That is a kashya on Rabbah.
The three cases
The Gemara names three things those extra words might be pointing at. That is all “the three cases” are.
1. Mechamer itself.
Rava’s use of the Mishnah: the leftover chilul is driving the loaded animal. Then driving is forbidden mid-oraita, and still has no chatas and no sekilah. Rabbah’s heqqesh is rejected.
2. תְּחוּמִין techumin, according to R. Akiva.
Walking more than two thousand amos past the town. R. Akiva holds that limit is mid-oraita. It is not one of the thirty-nine melachos. No carrying, no building, no kindling. Only walking too far. So no chatas and no sekilah.
If the Mishnah means techum, the extra words have a job even if Rabbah is right about mechamer.
3. הַבְעָרָה hav’arah, according to R. Yosi.
Kindling a fire. The verse לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ lo teva’aru esh. R. Yosi: that verse took kindling out of the list of avot that carry sekilah. It stands as a lav alone. No chatas. No sekilah.
If the Mishnah means kindling, again the extra words have a job even if Rabbah is right about mechamer.
| Case | Who uses it | What kind of chilul | Chatas / sekilah | What it does to Rabbah |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mechamer | Rava | driving a loaded animal | neither | Rabbah’s copy of the punishments fails |
| Techumin (R. Akiva) | defense of Rabbah | walking past two thousand amos | neither | the Mishnah is busy; Rabbah can still stand |
| Hav’arah (R. Yosi) | defense of Rabbah | kindling as a lav alone | neither | the Mishnah is busy; Rabbah can still stand |
So: Rava wants case 1. Rabbah’s side answers with case 2 or case 3. Cases 2 and 3 do not decide whether mechamer is chatas. They only save the Mishnah from being a proof against Rabbah.
Rava’s first answer (the body must do the act) still stands against Rabbah even after cases 2 and 3 are named.
What is actually in dispute
Not whether a man may drive a loaded animal on Shabbos. Everyone holds he may not.
The dispute is only the onesh:
- Rabbah: chatas if shogeg, sekilah if mezid. The animal’s walk is his melachah.
- Rava: not those. Either because his body did not do the act, or because the Mishnah already knows a chilul without those punishments.
A later lishana (Rav Zevid in Rami bar Chama’s name) tries a middle: no chatas, yes sekilah. That middle is a separate problem. It needs the Mishnah to mean “whatever has chatas has sekilah,” and not the reverse. Rabbah’s heqqesh is not that middle. Rabbah copies both punishments or he has not used the verse.
Open kashya
If cases 2 and 3 exist, the Mishnah no longer proves Rava. Then the whole fight falls back on the first answer: is driving an oseh ma’aseh be-gufo or not? The Gemara does not close that. That is the door back onto Rabbah’s heqqesh.