Shabbat 154A

רב זביד מתני הכי: אמר רמי בר חמא: המחמר אחר בהמה בשבת, בשוגג ⁠— אינו חייב חטאת, במזיד ⁠— חייב סקילה.

Rav Zevid taught this as follows. Rami bar Ḥama said: With regard to one who drives his laden animal on Shabbat, if he does so unwittingly, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering, and if he does so intentionally, he is liable to be executed by stoning.

מתיב רבא: המחלל את השבת בדבר שחייבין על שגגתו חטאת ⁠— חייבין על זדונו סקילה. הא אין חייבין על שגגתו חטאת ⁠— אין חייבין על זדונו סקילה!

Rava raised an objection based on that which was taught in a baraita: One who desecrates Shabbat by performing a matter that for its unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin-offering, then for its intentional performance one is liable to be executed by stoning. The Talmud explains: By inference, for a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning. This contradicts Rami bar Ḥama’s statement.

מי קתני ״הא אין חייבין כו׳״? הכי קאמר: דבר שחייבין על שגגתו חטאת ⁠— חייבין על זדונו סקילה. ויש דבר שאין חייבין על שגגתו חטאת ⁠— וחייבין על זדונו סקילה, ומאי ניהו? מחמר.

The Talmud answers: Was it taught in the baraita: By inference, for a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is not liable to be executed by stoning? The baraita can be understood differently, and this is what it is saying: With regard to a matter that for its unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin-offering, for its intentional performance one is always liable to be executed by stoning. However, there is also a matter that for its unwitting performance one is not liable to bring a sin-offering, and nevertheless, for its intentional performance one is liable to be executed by stoning. And what is that case? It is the case of driving a laden animal.