The Mishna in Masechet Shabbat (80b) addresses the question of how much sand one must carry through a public domain to be in violation of Shabbat. Although it is forbidden to carry any amount, one is not liable to bring a sacrifice for inadvertently violating Shabbat unless he carried a significant quantity. The Mishna establishes that a person is liable for carrying sand only if he carries the amount of sand "that is placed upon a spoonful of limestone." The Gemara explains the Mishna’s comment in light of the prohibition enacted by the Sages after the destruction of the Temple forbidding the use of limestone to plaster the walls of one’s home. In order to commemorate the Temple’s destruction, the Sages forbade the use of limestone, which gives a comely, aesthetic appearance to the home. They allowed using limestone only if one adds an amount of sand into it, which makes it darker and less aesthetic. The Gemara establishes that the amount of sand needed per spoonful of limestone to allow its use in building is the minimum amount that one must carry to be liable for carrying on Shabbat. The fact that this amount renders the limestone insufficiently aesthetic makes it significant enough a quantity to render one liable for carrying on Shabbat.
An obvious question arises concerning the Gemara’s discussion. According to the Gemara, the significance of this quantity of sand lies in its effect upon limestone with regard to a prohibition enacted after the Temple’s destruction. However, the Mishna speaks of the amount required to render one liable to bring a sacrifice – a Halacha which clearly applies only during the time of the Bet Hamikdash. How could the Mishna describe a Halacha which applies only when the Temple stood in light of a law that applied only after the Temple’s destruction?
The answer might relate to a ruling of the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles of Cracow, 1525-1572) in the laws of Shabbat (Orah Haim 334). The Rama rules that if a person inadvertently violated Shabbat, in a manner that would require bringing a sin-offering during the times of the Bet Hamikdash, then he should donate to charity that amount of money that he would have had to spend for a sacrifice. An animal nowadays costs several hundred dollars. According to the Rama, it is proper to donate this amount to charity after inadvertently violating Shabbat, in order not to benefit from the absence of the Temple.
If so, then the Mishna’s ruling bears application even after the destruction of the Temple. Even if one who violated Shabbat cannot bring a sacrifice, he is still advised to make a charitable donation to charity. Therefore, the guidelines which determine the obligation to bring a sin-offering are applicable regardless of the presence of the Bet Hamikdash, and it therefore should not surprise us that the Mishna uses in this context a measurement from the post-Temple era.
The Rama’s ruling should remind us of the grave severity of even inadvertent Shabbat violations. Even if a person committed a single, inadvertent act of Shabbat desecration, he is advised to make a significant donation to charity. In fact, the Rama mentions several measures that one should take to atone for a mistaken violation of Shabbat, including fasting and other forms of self-denial. And when it comes to the intentional violation of Shabbat, the Kaf Ha’haim (Rav Yaakov Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) goes so far as to require the community to excommunicate violators. Although we obviously cannot implement such measures, these comments should alert us to the grave importance of Shabbat observance, and the severity of its violation.
Summary: It is proper for one who inadvertently violated Shabbat to donate to charity the amount of money that he would have had to spend on an animal sacrifice in the times of the Bet Hamikdash, which amounts to several hundred dollars.
