Source: http://halakhah.com/shabbath/shabbath_70.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:08:25+00:00

Document:
If the matter is determined by what one would refrain from, the Sabbath and its forbidden labours are tantamount to the same thing, and there would be one law for both forms of ignorance.
V. notes on the Mishnah 67b.
That a sacrifice is incurred for every separate labour, though they are all performed in one state of unawareness.
Ex. XXXI, 14. 'Surely' is expressed in Hebrew by the doubling of the verb, which according to Talmudic exegesis signifies extension.
Ex. XXXV, 2. Here the verb is not doubled.
This is one of the methods of Talmudic exegesis: a text or its deduction which is irrelevant or incorrect in reference to its own case is applied to another case.
I.e., a sacrifice. Hence the verse teaches that many sacrifices may be incurred for the desecration of one Sabbath.
It is apparently superfluous, being included in the general prohibition of labour.
'Words' implies at least two; 'the' (Heb. v ) is regarded as an extension, whereby two is extended to three; 'these' (Heb. vkt ) is given its numerical value, which is thirty-six, thus totalling thirty-nine in all. (Hebrew letters are also numbers.) — The existence of a large body of oral law, stated verbally to Moses or generally known, was assumed. V. Weiss, Dor, I, and supra p. 123, n. 7.
Without being informed in between that some of these labours are forbidden, but remaining in ignorance from the first labour to the last.
Ibid. XXXIV, 21. Since these are specified individually, it follows that each entails a separate sacrifice.
Since it is stated separately.
Hence the difficulty, why does Samuel quote different verses to learn this?
Whereas other labours, wilfully performed, are punishable by death or kareth, this is punished by flagellation, like the violation of any negative precept.
How does he deduce this from the verse?
'Of one of them', Heb. [H] is a peculiar construction. Scripture should have written, 'and shall do one' (not of one) 'of them', or, 'and do of them' (one being understood), or, 'and shall do one' (of them being understood). Instead of which a partitive preposition is used before each. Hence each part of the pronoun is to be interpreted separately, teaching that he is liable for the transgression of 'one' precept, and for part of one (i.e., 'of one'); for 'them' (explained as referring to the primary labours); and for the derivatives 'of them' (toledoth — labours forbidden because they partake of the same nature as the fundamentally prohibited labours). Also, each pronoun reacts upon the other, as explained in the text.
A sin-offering is incurred only when a complete action is performed. The writing of a complete word — Simeon — is given as an example. Now, if one commences the word Simeon, [H] SHiMeoN in Hebrew, but writes only the first two letters thereof, viz., SHeM [H], he is also liable, though his intention is only partly fulfilled, because SHeM is a complete word in itself. This is called one labour which is part of another (i.e., 'of them'). If, however, the part he writes is not complete in itself, e.g., the first two letters of Reuben, in Hebrew, there is no liability.
Hence though he violates only one injunction, viz. the sacredness of the Sabbath, yet since he is ignorant of each of these acts, he is regarded as having committed a number of separate inadvertent transgressions, for each of which a sacrifice is due.
He does not agree to their implication of the verse, holding that it is all required in respect of primary and derivative labours.
Lit., 'if there is the forgetfulness of both in his hand'. — I.e., he was unaware that it was the Sabbath and that his acts are forbidden on the Sabbath.
I.e., on being informed that it is the Sabbath.
When informed that these labours are forbidden on the Sabbath.
When he is reminded of one, he naturally understands that the other is meant too, and desists on account of both.
Hence the problem remains in both cases; therefore only one sacrifice is brought, since a sin-offering may not be offered unless one is definitely liable thereto (Rashi as elaborated by Maharsha).
For if he is ignorant of all the forbidden labours of the Sabbath, the Sabbath is exactly the same as any other day to him, and he may be regarded as unaware of both.
That he should be liable for every single labour.
R. Nahman. Rashi reads.: That is well in the view of R. Johanan etc., v. supra 69a.
V. p. 329, n. 3.
Seeing that he does not know of a single forbidden labour: v. n. 1.
V. supra 69a for notes.
That is the minimum for which one is culpable.
So that he is liable to one sacrifice only.
Having been apprised of the Sabbath, whilst he forgot that these are prohibited labours. In this case he is separately culpable on account of each. In the interval between his first labours and his second he did not learn of his offence.
Whereupon he set aside one sacrifice on account of both labours — this being before he learnt of his second series of offences.

References: V. 
 V. 
 v. 

V. 
 v. 

V.