The Pious Man Who Rejoiced Over a Forgotten Sheaf

It happened that a certain pious man forgot one sheaf in the midst of his field, and he said to his son: Go out and offer up for me a bull as a burnt-offering and a bull as a peace-offering. His son said to him: Father, why have you seen fit to rejoice in this commandment more than in all the commandments stated in the Torah? He said to him: All the commandments of the Torah were given to us to perform with our awareness, and this one was performed without our awareness. Had we performed it knowingly before the Omnipresent, this commandment would not have come into our hands. Scripture says, "When you reap your harvest" and so forth (Deuteronomy 24:19) — Scripture established a blessing for him. And is this not an inference from the lesser to the greater? If one who did not intend to gain merit and gained it is credited as though he gained it, then one who intends to gain merit and gains it — how much more so. Similarly, "And if one soul sin in error" (Leviticus 4:27). And this is an inference from the lesser to the greater: if one who did not intend to sin and sinned is regarded as though he sinned, then one who intends to sin and sins — how much more so. Similarly, "her husband has annulled them, and the LORD will forgive her" (Numbers 30:13). Scripture speaks of a woman whose husband annulled her vow without her knowing, that she requires atonement and forgiveness. When Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse he would weep. He said: If one who intended to take up pork in his hand and took up lamb in his hand requires atonement and forgiveness, then one who intended to take up pork in his hand and took up pork in his hand — how much more so. Similarly you say, "though he knew it not, yet is he guilty and shall bear his iniquity" (Leviticus 5:17). If one who intended to take up the flesh of a lamb and took up pork in his hand — such as a piece concerning which it is doubtful whether it is forbidden fat or permitted fat — shall bear his iniquity, then one who intended to take up pork in his hand and took up pork in his hand — how much more so. Issi ben Yehuda says: "though he knew it not, yet is he guilty and shall bear his iniquity" — if one who intended to take up the flesh of a lamb and took up pork in his hand — such as two pieces, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat — shall bear his iniquity, then one who intended to take up pork in his hand — over this matter let all the grieving grieve. And why are all these cases needed? They are all necessary. For had Scripture taught only the case of the woman, I might have said that there she requires atonement and forgiveness because she originally intended the forbidden thing; but the piece of doubtful forbidden fat or permitted fat, where he intended the permitted thing, I might say requires no atonement and forgiveness. And had it been stated only here, that he ate something forbidden, I might say that the woman whose husband annulled her vow, which is permitted, requires no atonement and forgiveness. And had these two been stated, I would have said that these suffice with atonement and forgiveness because no forbidden thing was definitely established; but two pieces, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, where a forbidden thing was definitely established — atonement and forgiveness do not suffice. Therefore Scripture teaches us that it does.