Sanhedrin 35b — the Talmud in English

For it happened that he was going to slaughter his Passover-offering and circumcise

his son,

these two matters being stringent, for one is liable to karet for their neglect,

and he heard that a dead person had died for him,

a relative,

may he become impure

to his dead relative and thereby be deferred from the Passover-offering, or should he defer the circumcision of his son in order to attend to the burial of his dead relative?

You said: “He shall not become impure”!

Can it be that just as he does not become impure for his sister, so he does not become impure for a met mitzva,

who is a dead person who has no buriers?

The verse says: “And for his sister.”

The superfluity of the verse teaches that only

for his sister does he not become impure,

even though he is commanded to become impure for her if he were not a nazirite,

but he does become impure

for a

met mitzva,

even though through this the mitzva of the Passover-offering or the mitzva of circumcision will be nullified.

And Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan: If so,

Shabbat, which is overridden on account of the Temple service, is it not an inference that the burial of a met mitzva should override it?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

Execution,

the killing of one sentenced to death by the court,

proves it, for it overrides the Temple service,

for if the priest wished to perform the service, while he was liable to death, they would take him and kill him, as it is stated: “From My altar you shall take him to die,”

but it does not override Shabbat.

Reish Lakish said to him:

Execution itself should override Shabbat, by a kal va-chomer: If the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, execution overrides it, as it is stated

[Exodus 21]

“From My altar you shall take him to die.”

Shabbat, which is overridden on account of the Temple service —

is it not an inference that execution should override it?

Rava said: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael has already settled it

that execution does not override Shabbat.

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

[Exodus 35]

The Torah has said concerning Shabbat: “You shall not perform any labor,” and all the labors are included in this. If so, what is the meaning of the fact that the verse stated a separate verse concerning the labor of kindling,

“You shall not kindle fire

in all your settlements on the day of Shabbat”

; what does it teach?

What does this verse come to teach?

And before the Gemara brings the continuation of his words, it is astonished at his question and astonished at his words: Is it necessary to ask concerning this verse,

“What does it teach?”

But the tannaim disagreed concerning the meaning of the innovation learned from this verse!

If according to Rabbi Yosei,

the verse came for a great innovation, that kindling

went out for a “negative commandment,”

it came to teach that for the labor of kindling on Shabbat one is not liable to death, but it is punished only for transgressing the prohibition of a negative commandment.

If according to Rabbi Natan,

behold, kindling

went out for division!

To say that for the labors of Shabbat one brings a sin-offering for each labor separately.

As it was taught in a beraita: Kindling went out for a negative commandment; these are the words of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Natan says: It went out for division.

Kindling was written separately in order to teach concerning the other labors that one brings a sin-offering for each one separately.

Rather, Rava said: The tanna

of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, the word

“settlements”

in the wording of the verse

was difficult for him;

what does it teach?

“Settlements”

[in all your settlements], which the verse said, to teach that the prohibition of kindling on Shabbat applies everywhere, also outside the Land of Israel,

what does it teach?

Now,

behold,

Shabbat is a bodily obligation,

and its observance is not among those matters dependent on the Land of Israel,

and a bodily obligation

is obviously one that

applies both in the Land and outside the Land.

And if so, the word

“settlements,” which the Merciful One wrote, why do I need it?

And now the Gemara brings the continuation of the words of the beraita:

In the name of Rabbi Yishmael, one student said: Since it was stated

[Deuteronomy 21]

“When there shall be in a man a sin deserving the judgment of death, and he is put to death,” I might understand

that the court should put him to death

both on a weekday and on Shabbat,

by a kal va-chomer from the Temple service, as above.

And how do I uphold

[Exodus 31]

“Those who profane it shall surely be put to death” —

with regard to the other labors, apart from execution by the court.

Or is it not

so,

but even execution by the court

does not override Shabbat.

And how do I uphold “and he is put to death” \-

on a weekday, but not on Shabbat.

Or is it only on Shabbat as well?

The verse says: “You shall not kindle fire in all your settlements.” And also

below,

in the section concerning the punishment of a murderer intentionally or unintentionally,

it

[the verse]

says:

[Numbers 35]

“And these shall be for you a statute of judgment throughout your generations, in all your settlements.”

And we learned by a gezera shava of “settlements”:

Just as,

like, the

“settlements” mentioned below,

in the section concerning a murderer, refer there to punishment by

the court, so too, the “settlements” mentioned here,

concerning kindling on Shabbat, refer there to punishment carried out by

the court.

And the Merciful One said

concerning punishment carried out through kindling in execution by burning in court,

“You shall not kindle fire in all your settlements.”

Abaye said: Now, since you have said that execution does not override Shabbat —

execution does not override the Temple service, by a kal va-chomer;

And if Shabbat, which is overridden on account of the Temple service —

execution does not override it; the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat —

is it not an inference that execution should not override it!

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But what of that which is written: “From My altar you shall take him to die”!?

And it answers:

That is referring to an individual offering, which does not override Shabbat.

Rava said:

If you come to expound this kal va-chomer, it will be difficult for you how we should establish the verse “From My altar you shall take him to die,” because

execution shall not

override

even

an individual offering, by a kal va-chomer: