Shabbat 97B

למימרא דמחייב רבי אתולדה במקום אב?

Is that to say that R' Yehuda HaNasi deems one liable for a subcategory of prohibited labor when performed with a primary category of prohibited labor? After all, carrying out and carrying in constitute a primary category of prohibited labor and its subcategory.

והתניא, רבי אומר: ״דברים״ ״הדברים״ ״אלה הדברים״⁠ — אלו שלשים ותשע מלאכות שנאמרו למשה בסיני!

Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that R' Yehuda HaNasi says that Shabbat is mentioned in the verse: “These are the things [eleh hadevarim] that God has commanded to perform them” (Exodus 35:1)? Several points are derived from the superfluous emphases in this verse. The Torah could simply have stated: This is a thing [davar]. When it states things [devarim] in the plural, it teaches at least two points. The addition of the definite article the in the term the things [hadevarim] adds at least a third point. The numerological value of letters of the word eleh, which are alef, one; lamed, 30; and heh, 5, is 36. The phrase: These are the things, alludes to 3 plus 36 derivation, i.e., the 39 prohibited labors that were stated to Moses at Sinai. Since R' Yehuda HaNasi maintains that there are a fixed number of primary categories of labor, he would certainly hold a person liable for the primary categories but not for the subcategories.

אמר ליה רב יוסף: מר אהא מתני לה, וקשיא ליה דרבי אדרבי. אנן אדרבי יהודה מתנינן ⁠— ולא קשיא לן.

Rav Yosef said to him: The Master taught Rav Yehuda’s statement with regard to this, and consequently, he encounters a difficulty. One statement of R' Yehuda HaNasi contradicts another statement of R' Yehuda HaNasi. We learn the statement of Rav Yehuda with regard to the opinion of R' Yehuda, and therefore there is no difficulty for us.