The Talmud [Sanhedrin 62b] is trying to get Rabbi Zachai to make sense. I am have trouble figuring out in what way there is any problem. The way the Talmud comes out is that R. Zachei said idolatry is liable for an act without intention and Shabat not. The Talmud asks what is idolatry without intention? To Abyee it is serving it from fear or love and to Rava is it "he says it is allowed."
אומר מותר.
What is a case of "he says it is allowed?" The baby that was captured and grew up without knowing Shabat.
So that is Munbaz in Tractate Shabat. This is very reasonable. But the Gemara seems to have a problem with R. Zachei and asks from the question if העלם זה וזה בידו he forgot both Shabat and all the kinds of work. But that question was asked about the two middle parts of the Mishna in Klal Gadol [Shabat chat 7] not about the beginning of the Mishna with the baby that was captured.
So I am having trouble seeing what the Talmud does not understand about Rabbi Zachei.
[Tosphot and the Maharsha do not deal with this problem in Sanhedrin. I am not sure where to look rhis up. Maybe in Shabat in the parallel sugia. Or Kritut. For the moment I am at a lose to know what to do here.]
סנהדרין סב: התלמוד רוצה ליישב את רבי זכאי. ואני מתקשה להבין למה יש קושיה. התלמוד מסיקה שרבי זעאי אמר שגגת ע''ז בלי כוונה חייב משא''כ בשבת. מה זה שגגת ע''ז?לאביי מאהבה ומיראה ולרבא היא אומר מותר. אומר מותר הוא תינוק שנשבה. וזו שיטת מונבז שהוא פטור. זה ישר ופשוט. אבל הגמרא שואלת מן השאלה של העלם זה וזה בידו.שאז יש חיוב גם בשבת. אבל השאלה הזאת נשאלת רק לגבי הבבות האמצעיות של המשנה בכלל גדול שבת פרק ז'. ולכן קשה לראות מה יש קשה להבין ברבי זכאי.
Appendix:
I can understand if the Gemara here is going like Abyee. Then everything would be fine. We have a case in idolatry that brings a sin offering, serving from love or fear. Clearly he has some idea that there is such a thing as idolatry. And a similar case on shabat where he knows about shabat but he thinks some act is allowed when it is not should also be liable. So if the Talmud here is thinking like Abyee then there is a legitimate question on Rabbi Zachai.
And come to think of it maybe in fact that is what is going on. Because if the Talmud is thinking like Rava then there seems to be nothing wrong with Rabbi Zachai. One case in idolatry is liable and the parallel case in shabat is not.--the אומר מותר "He says, 'It is permitted'" case.
But I am sure you can see why this is still unsettling. First because "He says 'It is allowed'" is suspiciously close to תינוק שנשבה שמג and it is Munbaz that says that is not liable, not the sages who were against Munbaz.
So you can see what is disturbing here. I would like Rabbi Zachei to be like Munbaz and like Rava. But in Shabat it was Rabbi Yochanan himself who was going like Munbaz and he is the one here in our Gemara that is at odds with Rabbi Zachei. And when the Gemara here is asking on Rabbi Zachei it is doing it from a question of Rava to Rav Nachman. העלם זה וזה בידו a hiding of shabat and work.
In any case no matter what happens in the next few day, I think we can all agree that this Gemara is going only like Abyee.
אומר מותר.
What is a case of "he says it is allowed?" The baby that was captured and grew up without knowing Shabat.
So that is Munbaz in Tractate Shabat. This is very reasonable. But the Gemara seems to have a problem with R. Zachei and asks from the question if העלם זה וזה בידו he forgot both Shabat and all the kinds of work. But that question was asked about the two middle parts of the Mishna in Klal Gadol [Shabat chat 7] not about the beginning of the Mishna with the baby that was captured.
So I am having trouble seeing what the Talmud does not understand about Rabbi Zachei.
[Tosphot and the Maharsha do not deal with this problem in Sanhedrin. I am not sure where to look rhis up. Maybe in Shabat in the parallel sugia. Or Kritut. For the moment I am at a lose to know what to do here.]
סנהדרין סב: התלמוד רוצה ליישב את רבי זכאי. ואני מתקשה להבין למה יש קושיה. התלמוד מסיקה שרבי זעאי אמר שגגת ע''ז בלי כוונה חייב משא''כ בשבת. מה זה שגגת ע''ז?לאביי מאהבה ומיראה ולרבא היא אומר מותר. אומר מותר הוא תינוק שנשבה. וזו שיטת מונבז שהוא פטור. זה ישר ופשוט. אבל הגמרא שואלת מן השאלה של העלם זה וזה בידו.שאז יש חיוב גם בשבת. אבל השאלה הזאת נשאלת רק לגבי הבבות האמצעיות של המשנה בכלל גדול שבת פרק ז'. ולכן קשה לראות מה יש קשה להבין ברבי זכאי.
Appendix:
I can understand if the Gemara here is going like Abyee. Then everything would be fine. We have a case in idolatry that brings a sin offering, serving from love or fear. Clearly he has some idea that there is such a thing as idolatry. And a similar case on shabat where he knows about shabat but he thinks some act is allowed when it is not should also be liable. So if the Talmud here is thinking like Abyee then there is a legitimate question on Rabbi Zachai.
And come to think of it maybe in fact that is what is going on. Because if the Talmud is thinking like Rava then there seems to be nothing wrong with Rabbi Zachai. One case in idolatry is liable and the parallel case in shabat is not.--the אומר מותר "He says, 'It is permitted'" case.
But I am sure you can see why this is still unsettling. First because "He says 'It is allowed'" is suspiciously close to תינוק שנשבה שמג and it is Munbaz that says that is not liable, not the sages who were against Munbaz.
So you can see what is disturbing here. I would like Rabbi Zachei to be like Munbaz and like Rava. But in Shabat it was Rabbi Yochanan himself who was going like Munbaz and he is the one here in our Gemara that is at odds with Rabbi Zachei. And when the Gemara here is asking on Rabbi Zachei it is doing it from a question of Rava to Rav Nachman. העלם זה וזה בידו a hiding of shabat and work.
In any case no matter what happens in the next few day, I think we can all agree that this Gemara is going only like Abyee.
