משנה: הַזּוֹרֵק וְנִזְכַּר עַד שֶׁלֹּא תֵצֵא מִיָּדוֹ קְלָטָהּ אַחֵר קְלָטָהּ כֶּלֶב אוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפָה פָּטוּר. זָרַק לַעֲשׂוֹת חַבּוּרָה בֵּין בָּאָדָם בֵּין בַּבְּהֵמָה וְנִזְכַּר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֵׂית חַבּוּרָה פָּטוּר. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל־חַייָבֵי חַטָּאוֹת אֵינָן חַייָבִין עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא תְחִלָּתָן וְסוֹפָן שְׁגָגָה. תְּחִילָּתָן שְׁגָגָה וְסוֹפָן זָדוֹן תְּחִלָּתָן זָדוֹן וְסוֹפָן שְׁגָגָה פְּטוּרִין עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא תְחִילָּתָן וְסוֹפָן שְׁגָגָה: MISHNAH: One who throws and remembers before it leaves his hand, if another person caught it, or a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable22The liability is for a purification sacrifice. Since such a sacrifice cannot be offered as a voluntary gift, all preconditions for it must be strictly satisfied. The first condition is that a prosecutable offense must have been committed; in this case that lifting, transporting, and depositing must be done by the same person (Shabbat 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.1.1.1">Chapter 1, Note 1). In the cases described in this sentence, the last condition is not satisfied. “It was burned” means burned in flight.. If one threw with the intention of causing an injury whether on a human or an animal and he remembered before it caused an injury, he is not liable23A purification sacrifice is possible only for inadvertent offenses. If during the course of the action the subject became aware of the criminality of his deed, there can be no purification sacrifice. This is the principle: All who are liable for a purification sacrifice are liable only if beginning and end were in error. If the beginning was unintentional but the end criminal or the beginning criminal and the end unintentional they are not liable unless beginning and end be unintentional.
הלכה: ו׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. וְהֵזִיד. וְקַשְׁיָא. אִילּוּ יָרָה חֵץ לַהֲרוֹג בּוֹ אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְהִתְרוּ בוֹ וְחָזַר בּוֹ. שֶׁמָּא כְלוּם הוּא. הֲוֵי סוֹפָךְ מֵימַר. וְהֵזִיד. HALAKHAH: 6109Here starts discussion of Mishnah 9. So is the Mishnah: “he acted intentionally.110After he realized that it was the Sabbath and that his throwing was a Sabbath violation he did not regret having thrown the object.” This is difficult. If somebody shot an arrow intending to kill a person, he was warned, and changed his intention; is that anything111The sequence in the question is not quite correct. A person was warned not to shoot another (a requirement for future prosecution), nevertheless he shot but while the arrow was in the air he regretted the act. The fact that his victim was killed when he no longer wished to kill him does not shield the perpetrator from prosecution and conviction. In the case of the Mishnah, one cannot see what influence a temporary consciousness of the criminality of the deed should have on the legal status of the act.? Finally you have to say that it was intentional112Therefore one has to agree with the correction, that after the person realized that he was throwing on the Sabbath he was satisfied with what he had done, and an act which is started in oblivion but completed in consciousness cannot be atoned for by a sacrifice..
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. בְּשׁוֹגֵג בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וּבְמֵזִיד בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁע בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. בְּשׁוֹגֵג בְּהִיכָּרֵת. וּבְמֵזִיד בְּהִיכָּרֵת. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי מְסַייֵעַ לְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. אֶת־יְי ה֣וּא מְגַדֵּ֑ף וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ. אֲפִילוּ מֵזִיד בְּהִיכָּרֵת מַתְרִין בּוֹ וְלוֹקֶה וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַשּׁוֹגֵג בְּחֵלֶב וּמֵזִיד בַּחַטָּאת מַתְרִין בּוֹ וְלוֹקֶה וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, unintentionally a prohibition, intentionally a prohibition113In his opinion, only if both the unintentional and the intentional acts are forbidden as simple prohibitions is there no liability for a purification sacrifice, but if the unintentional act is under a simple prohibition and the intentional is a deadly sin punishable by extirpation a sacrifice is due. This opinion is not otherwise found in the Talmudim.. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, unintentionally extirpation, intentionally extirpation114This is the standard opinion, that a sacrifice is due only for sins for which the punishment is extirpation at least, and only if it was unintentional from beginning to end (ˋBabli 68b/69a, Yevamot.9a">Yebamot 9a, Horayot.8a">Horaiot 8a, Ševuot 32b).. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, a support of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: He blasphemes the Eternal and will be extirpated115Numbers.15.31">Num. 15:31; the basic text which bars the intentional sinner from offering a purification sacrifice. The quote clearly is elliptic; in Sifry Num. 112 the restriction to sins punishable at least with extirpation is stated in the name of R. Aqiba.. Think of it; even if he was intentional in a matter of extirpation and he was warned and is being flogged, may he bring a sacrifice116If the sin was under a simple prohibition if unintentional but subjects the perpetrator to extirpartion if intentional, if the act was prosecutable, he was flogged, and therefore is no longer subject to extirpation (Makkot 3:12:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Makkot.3.12.1">Mishnah Makkot 3:17), should he still be liable for a sacrifice for the simple prohibition involved? This we never heard; therefore the position of R. Yose ben Ḥanina is untenable.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was unintentional about fat but intentional about the purification sacrifice one warns him and he is flogged117This sentence must read: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was intentional about fat but unintentional about the purification sacrifice one warns him and he is flogged (Terumot 6:1, Notes 5,6; Bava qamma 7:3, Note 29, Ševuot 3:1, Note 9)..
תַּנֵּי. אֵין מִתְעַסְּקִין לֹא בַחֲלָבִים וְלֹא בָעֲרָיוֹת. הַמִּתְעַסֵּק בַּשַּׁבָּת פָטוּר. בַּחֲלָבִים וּבָעֲרָיוֹת חַייָב. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. אָמַר. הֲרֵי אֲנִי קוֹצֵר חֲצִי גְּרוֹגֶרֶת. וְקָצַר כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת פָּטוּר. הֲרֵי אֲנִי אוֹכֵל חֲצִי זַיִת. וְאָכַל כְּזַיִת חַייָב. הֲרֵי אֲנִי מִתְחַמֵּם בָּהּ. וְהֶעֱרָה בָהּ חַייָב. It was stated: One experiments118One acts without a particular aim. neither with fat nor with incest or adultery. One who experiments on the Sabbath is not liable, with fat or with incest or adultery is liable. How is this? If he said, “am going to harvest the volume half of a dried fig” and then he harvested the volume of a dried fig, he is not liable. “I am going to eat half the volume of an olive” and ate the volume of an olive; he is liable. “I am going to arouse myself by her” and then touched her119His genitals touched the forbidden female’s genitals (Yevamot 4:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.4.2.3">Yebamot 4:2 Note 59, 6:1 Note 11).; he is liable.