This is the baraita that Rabbi Zakkai taught before Rabbi Yoḥanan: There is a stringency with regard to Shabbat vis-à-vis other mitzvot, and conversely, there is a stringency with regard to other mitzvot vis-à-vis Shabbat. There is a stringency with regard to Shabbat, as with regard to Shabbat, if one performed two distinct acts of labor in one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each and every act, which is not so with regard to other mitzvot. Conversely, there is a stringency with regard to other mitzvot, as with regard to other mitzvot, if one sinned unwittingly, without intent to perform the act of the transgression at all, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering, which is not so with regard to Shabbat.

The Gemara examines this baraita in detail. The Master said: There is a stringency with regard to Shabbat, as with regard to Shabbat, if one performed two distinct acts of labor in one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring a sin-offering for each act. What are the circumstances? If we say that he unwittingly performed acts of reaping and grinding on Shabbat, the corresponding situation with regard to other mitzvot is a case where one unwittingly consumed forbidden fat and blood. If so, there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot; here, one is obligated to bring two sin-offerings, and there, one is obligated to bring two sin-offerings.

Rather, what are the circumstances with regard to other mitzvot where one is obligated to bring only one sin-offering? One is obligated in a case where he consumed forbidden fat and again consumed forbidden fat within one lapse of awareness. The corresponding situation with regard to Shabbat is a case where one performed an act of reaping and performed another act of reaping within one lapse of awareness. In that case too there is no difference between Shabbat and other mitzvot; here, one is obligated to bring one sin-offering, and there, one is obligated to bring one sin-offering.

The Gemara comments: And that is the reason that Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Zakkai: Go out and teach this baraita outside; it is not worthy of being taught in the study hall.

The Gemara asks: What is the difficulty that caused Rabbi Yoḥanan to disregard the baraita? Actually, perhaps I will say to you that the baraita is referring to a case where one performed acts of reaping and grinding on Shabbat, and when the baraita states: Which is not so with regard to other mitzvot, it is not referring to all mitzvot in general; rather, we arrive at the halakha of idol worship, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami. As Rabbi Ami says: If one sacrificed an animal as an idolatrous offering and burned incense and poured a libation, all in the course of one lapse of awareness, he is obligated to bring only one sin-offering.

The Gemara answers: The baraita cannot be interpreted as referring to idol worship, as it teaches in the last clause: There is a stringency with regard to other mitzvot, as with regard to other mitzvot, if one sinned unwittingly, without the intent to perform the act at all, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering.

The Gemara explains why this cannot be referring to idol worship. What are the circumstances of one who unwittingly transgresses the prohibition of idol worship without the intent to perform the act? If he thought that a house of idol worship was a synagogue and bowed to it, he is certainly exempt, as his heart was directed toward Heaven. Rather, it must be a case where the transgressor saw the statue of a person and bowed to it. If he accepted that person upon himself as a god, he is an intentional transgressor and is liable to receive the death penalty, not to bring an offering. And if he did not accept him upon himself as a god, what he did is nothing.

Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case where one worshipped an idol due to love or due to fear of a person, and he was unaware that this is prohibited. This works out well according to Abaye, who says that one who engages in idol worship due to love or fear is liable; accordingly, one who does so unwittingly must bring an offering. But according to Rava, who says that one who does so is exempt, what can be said?

Rather, the baraita must be referring to a case where the transgressor says to himself that idol worship is permitted in general. Accordingly, the statement in the baraita: Which is not so in the halakhot of Shabbat, is referring to one who was under the impression that performing labor on Shabbat is permitted. One who performs prohibited labor under those circumstances is completely exempt, while one who transgresses under those circumstances with regard to idol worship one is obligated to bring a sin-offering.

This interpretation of the baraita is difficult, as Rava asked Rav Naḥman about the halakha in a case where one violated Shabbat during a lapse of awareness of both this, that it was Shabbat, and that the particular labor that he performed is prohibited on Shabbat. And Rava’s question was only with regard to whether to deem the person obligated to bring one sin-offering or whether to deem him obligated to bring two sin-offerings. There is no one who says that such a person is entirely exempt, in accordance with this interpretation of the baraita. Therefore, the baraita cannot be referring to idol worship.

The Gemara challenges this conclusion: What is the difficulty in interpreting the baraita as referring to idol worship? Actually, perhaps I will say to you that the first clause of the baraita is referring to the contrast between Shabbat and idol worship, and the last clause is referring to the contrast between Shabbat and other mitzvot.

And the halakha of one who transgressed other mitzvot unwittingly, without intent to perform the act, is referring to, e.g., a case where one has forbidden fat in his mouth and thinks it is spittle, and he swallows it. In that case he must bring an offering for his transgression, which is not so with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, where in a parallel case one would be exempt. As, for example, one who intended to lift a plant that was detached from the ground and mistakenly severed a plant still attached to the ground is exempt. One is not liable for an unintentional act of labor on Shabbat.

And this distinction is in accordance with the statement that Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says, as he says: One who acts unawares with forbidden fats or with those with whom sexual relations are forbidden, i.e., one who accidentally consumed forbidden fat or engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse, without intending to perform the act at all (see Yevamot 54a), is obligated to bring a sin-offering, since he derived pleasure from the transgression. But one who acts unawares on Shabbat, performing forbidden labor, is exempt, as the Torah prohibits only planned labor.

Since the baraita can be explained in this manner, the Gemara explains why Rabbi Yoḥanan rejected it anyway: Rabbi Yoḥanan conforms to his standard line of reasoning, in that he does not interpret the first clause of a baraita with one explanation and the last clause of the same baraita with one other explanation. Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept the premise that a baraita can be referring to a different matter in each clause unless it states so explicitly.

As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whoever explains to me the mishna concerning a barrel (Bava Metzia 40b) in accordance with the opinion of one tanna, I will carry his clothes after him to the bathhouse, i.e., I will attend him as a servant, as although that mishna can be explained by dividing it into two different opinions, I do not accept that type of explanation. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept the suggestion that the first clause of the baraita here is referring to idol worship and the last clause is referring to other mitzvot.

§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself, namely, whether one who engages in several forms of idol worship in the same lapse of awareness brings more than one sin-offering.