שם משמעון. ״הנה״ — אבות, ״מהנה״ — תולדות. ״אחת שהיא הנה״ — זדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות. ״הנה שהיא אחת״ — שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות. ושמואל, ״אחת שהיא הנה״ ו״הנה שהיא אחת״ לא משמע ליה.
only shem, part of the word, the letters shin and mem, from Shimon. Them refers to one who performed the primary categories of labor. Of them refers to one who performed subcategories of prohibited labors. One that is them refers to one transgression with multiple punishments, as in a case where his action was intentional with regard to Shabbat in that he was aware that it was Shabbat, and his action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labors in that he was unaware that the labors were prohibited. In that case, he is liable for each primary category of labor. Them that are one refers to several transgressions with one punishment, as in a case where his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat in that he was unaware that it was Shabbat, and his action was intentional with regard to the prohibited labors in that he was aware that the labors were prohibited. In that case, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. Apparently, R' Yosei has a source for the division of Shabbat labors. Why doesn’t Shmuel derive the halakha from that source? The Talmud answers: Shmuel did not derive one that is them and them that are one from the verse.
בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן: העלם זה וזה בידו, מהו? אמר ליה: הרי העלם שבת בידו, ואינו חייב אלא אחת. אדרבה, הרי העלם מלאכות בידו וחייב על כל אחת ואחת! אלא אמר רב אשי: חזינן, אי משום שבת קא פריש — הרי העלם שבת בידו ואינו חייב אלא אחת, ואי משום מלאכה קפריש — הרי העלם מלאכות בידו וחייב על כל אחת ואחת. אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי: כלום פריש משבת אלא משום מלאכות, כלום פריש ממלאכות אלא משום שבת — אלא לא שנא.
Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: What is the halakha if a person had a lapse of awareness of both this, Shabbat, and that, a particular labor? He said to him: He had a lapse of awareness with regard to Shabbat and is liable to bring only one sin-offering. Rava said to him: On the contrary, he had a lapse of awareness with regard to prohibited labors, and he should be liable for each and every labor that he performed. Rather, Rav Ashi said: We see, if it is due to awareness of Shabbat that he desists from performing the labor when he is told what day it is, then, apparently, it was a lapse of awareness with regard to Shabbat, and he is liable for only one. And if it is due to awareness of the prohibited labor that he desists, then, apparently, it was a lapse of awareness with regard to the labors and he is liable for each and every one. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Does he desist due to Shabbat for any reason other than because he knows that the labors are prohibited? And similarly, does he desist from performing the labors when told that it is prohibited for any reason other than because he knows that it is Shabbat? When one desists from labor when he is told that it is Shabbat, it is because he understands that the labor he is performing is prohibited on Shabbat. Similarly, when one desists from his labor when he is told that the labor is prohibited, it is because he understands that the day is Shabbat. Rather, there is no difference between the cases, and in both he is considered unwitting with regard to Shabbat.