Shabbat 94A

ששגג על האוכלין והזיד על הכלי. מתקיף לה רב אשי: והא ״אף על הכלי״ קתני! אלא אמר רב אשי: כגון ששגג בזה ובזה, ונודע לו, וחזר ונודע לו, ובפלוגתא דרבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש.

one acted unwittingly with regard to the food and intentionally with regard to the vessel. He is liable to bring a sin-offering for the food and to receive karet for the vessel. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this. Didn’t the baraita teach: He is liable even for the vessel? Apparently, the liability for the food and the liability for the vessel are identical. Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is referring to a case where one acted unwittingly both with regard to this, the food, and with regard to that, the vessel. And he became aware of one transgression, and then he became aware of the other transgression. And the ruling is dependent upon the dispute between R' Yoḥanan and R' Shimon ben Lakish cited above, with regard to the question whether or not one who unwittingly performed a single transgression twice and became aware of each separately is liable to bring two sin-offerings.

את החי במטה פטור אף על המטה. לימא מתניתין רבי נתן היא ולא רבנן, דתניא: המוציא בהמה חיה ועוף לרשות הרבים, בין חיין ובין שחוטין ⁠— חייב. רבי נתן אומר: על שחוטין חייב ועל חיין פטור, שהחי נושא את עצמו. אמר רבא: אפילו תימא רבנן, עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי נתן אלא בבהמה חיה ועוף דמשרבטי נפשייהו, אבל אדם חי דנושא את עצמו ⁠— אפילו רבנן מודו.

We learned in the Mishnah: One who carries out a living person on a bed is exempt even for carrying out the bed. The Talmud suggests: Let us say that the Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Natan and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as it was taught in a baraita: One who carries out a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl into the public domain on Shabbat is liable whether they are alive or whether they are slaughtered. R' Natan says: For carrying out slaughtered animals, he is liable, and for carrying out live animals, he is exempt, because a living being carries itself. A living being attempts to lighten the load of the person carrying it and thereby participates in the act of carrying. Rava said: The Mishnah can be understood even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis disagree with R' Natan only as far as the case of a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, and fowl is concerned because they deaden their weight in an attempt to free themselves from the one carrying them. However, with regard to the fact that a live person carries himself, even the Rabbis agree. Therefore, one who carries a live person out is exempt.