Shabbat 68B

אבל לא שכחה, מאי ⁠— חייב על כל מלאכה ומלאכה? אדתני היודע שהוא שבת ועשה מלאכות הרבה בשבתות הרבה חייב על כל מלאכה ומלאכה, ליתני ״היודע עיקר שבת״, וכל שכן הא! אלא, מתניתין כשהכיר ולבסוף שכח, ודרב ושמואל נמי כהכיר ולבסוף שכח דמי. והכי איתמר: רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו אפילו תינוק שנשבה בין הגוים וגר שנתגייר לבין הגוים ⁠— כהכיר ולבסוף שכח דמי, וחייב.

The Talmud raises another difficulty: But if he did not forget the essence of Shabbat, and he knows that today is Shabbat, what would the halakha be? Certainly he would be liable for each and every prohibited labor. If so, instead of teaching the halakha: One who knows that it is Shabbat and performs many labors on multiple Shabbatot is liable for each and every labor, let the Mishnah teach the halakha: One who knows the essence of Shabbat is liable for each and every labor that he performs and all the more so that one who is aware that today is Shabbat would be liable for each labor. Rather, when our Mishnah refers to forgetting, it is referring to a case where he knew and ultimately forgot. And the case described by Rav and Shmuel also has the same legal status as one who knew and ultimately forgot. And it was stated as follows: It was Rav and Shmuel who both said: Even a child who was taken captive among the non-Jews and a convert who converted among the non-Jews have the same legal status as one who knew and ultimately forgot, and they are liable to bring a sin-offering for their unwitting transgression, even though they never learned about Shabbat.

ורבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו: דוקא הכיר ולבסוף שכח ⁠— אבל תינוק שנשבה בין הגוים וגר שנתגייר לבין הגוים ⁠— פטור. מיתיבי: כלל גדול אמרו בשבת: כל השוכח עיקר שבת, ועשה מלאכות הרבה בשבתות הרבה ⁠— אינו חייב אלא אחת. כיצד? תינוק שנשבה לבין הגוים, וגר שנתגייר בין הגוים, ועשה מלאכות הרבה בשבתות הרבה ⁠— אינו חייב אלא חטאת אחת. וחייב על הדם אחת, ועל החלב אחת, ועל עבודה זרה אחת, ומונבז פוטר.

And it was R' Yoḥanan and R' Shimon ben Lakish who both said: He is liable to bring a sin-offering specifically if he knew of the essence of Shabbat and ultimately forgot. However, a child who was taken captive among the non-Jews and a convert who converted among the non-Jews are exempt from bringing a sin-offering. They have the legal status of one who performed the prohibited labor due to circumstances beyond his control. The Talmud raises an objection from that which was taught in a baraita: They stated a significant principle with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat: One who forgets the essence of Shabbat, i.e., one who does not know that there is a mitzva of Shabbat in the Torah, and performs many prohibited labors on multiple Shabbatot is liable to bring only one sin-offering. How so? With regard to a child who was taken captive among the non-Jews and a convert who converted among the non-Jews and does not know the essence of Shabbat; and if he performed many prohibited labors on multiple Shabbatot, he is only liable to bring one sin-offering for all his unwitting transgressions. And he is liable to bring one sin-offering for all the blood he unwittingly ate before he learned of the prohibition; and one sin-offering for all the forbidden fat that he ate; and one for all the idolatry that he worshipped. And Munbaz, one of the rabbis, deems him exempt from bringing any sacrifice.