Kerisus Chart #6
Chart for Kerisus Daf 19b
IS ONE CHAYAV TO BRING A CHATAS
FOR UNINTENTIONAL DESECRATION OF SHABBOS? (1)
|1||HE INTENDED TO PERFORM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ACTION, WHICH IS PERMITTED
("Mis'asek b'Ma'aseh Acher":
e.g. he intended to pick up a knife, but he cut a grape instead)
|2||HE INTENDED TO PERFORM THE SAME ACTION BUT IN A MANNER THAT IS PERMITTED
("Shnei Gufin, v'Echad me'Hem Shel Heter": e.g. he wanted to cut a grape from a detached cluster, and he picked a grape from a cluster that was still attached) (4)
|Rava : Patur
|3a||HE INTENDED TO DO A PROHIBITED ACTION, KNOWING THAT IT WAS PROHIBITED
("Shnei Gufin, Sheneihem Shel Isur": e.g. he intended to pick one grape, and he accidentally picked a different one)
|3b||HE INTENDED TO DO A PROHIBITED ACTION, BUT HE DID NOT KNOW IT WAS PROHIBITED, DUE TO A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES
("Chisaron Yedi'ah ha'Gorem l'Shinuy b'Ma'aseh": e.g. he thought this grape was detached but it really was attached
|Chayav (6)||Rava : Patur
Abaye: Chayav (7)
|4||HE INTENDED TO DO A PROHIBITED ACTION, BUT HE DID NOT KNOW IT WAS PROHIBITED, DUE TO A TO A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE HALACHIC CIRCUMSTANCES
("Chisaron Yedi'as ha'Isur": e.g. he did not know that it was Shabbos, or that the Torah prohibits picking grapes on Shabbos)
(1) See Insights here, where we explain in detail the argument between RASHI and TOSFOS and their respective approaches to the Gemara.
(2) The general rule is as follows: According to RASHI, Abaye and Rava argue only in a case in which one intended to do an action in a manner that was permitted, and he ended up doing the action in a manner which is forbidden (for example, he intended to cut a detached plant, and instead he cut a different plant, that was attached). However, when one intended to do a forbidden action (thinking that he is doing a permitted action) but instead did a different forbidden action, he is not considered Misa'asek, but rather he is considered Shogeg and is Chayav to bring a Korban Chatas (for example, he intended to cut a plant which he thought was detached, but was really attached, and he ended up cutting a different plant that was attached. Alternatively, he intended to cut a particular attached plant, and he instead cut another attached plant; see rows 3a and 3b in the Chart).
(3) According to TOSFOS, Abaye and Rava argue only in a case in which the person lacked a full understanding of the physical situation, and, as a result of his lack of knowledge, he performed a different action from the one he had intended to perform ("Chisaron Yedi'ah ha'Gorem l'Shinuy Ma'aseh"). For example, he thought that this plant was detached and he cut it, but in reality it was attached. However, if he intended to do an action with one item and he ended up doing an action with another item, both Abaye and Rava agree that he is exempt (rows 2 and 3a in the Chart).
(4) The same applies when he intended to throw an object two Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim and he accidentally threw it four Amos (as mentioned in Shabbos 73a), or when he intended to throw four Amos thinking that this area was a Reshus ha'Yachid and it was really a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(5) This is the inference that Tosfos (Shabbos 73a, DH Niskaven) makes from the words of Rashi (ibid., DH Niskaven). According to Rashi, this is actually a matter of dispute between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah here; Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that one is Patur in such a case, because "Meleches Machsheves Asrah Torah," the Torah forbids only an intentionally performed Melachah, as we explain in the Insights here).
(6) This seems to be the intention of Rashi (Shabbos 73a, DH Niskaven), based on the inference of Tosfos (there, DH Niskaven; see footnote #4 above).
(7) This is the way Rabeinu Tam (cited by Tosfos in Shabbos) explains. According to his explanation, when Abaye and Rava argue (Shabbos 73a) regarding a case in which one intended to throw two Amos and accidentally threw four Amos, it must be a case where he intended to throw from here to the wall, and he thought that the distance was two Amos, while in reality it was four Amos (RITVA there).