Sanhedrin 35b (לה:) — the Talmud in English

If one was on his way to slaughter his Paschal offering and to circumcise

his son,

as these two mitzvot are stringent, since one is liable to karet for neglecting them,

and he heard that a close relative had died,

could he

become impure

for his deceased relative and thereby be prevented from bringing the Paschal offering, or should he postpone the circumcision of his son in order to attend to the burial of his deceased relative?

You have said: “He shall not become impure”!

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

a deceased person who has no one to bury him?

The verse states: “Or for his sister.”

The superfluous wording of the verse teaches that only

for his sister does he not become impure,

even though, if he were not a nazirite, he would be commanded to become impure for her;

but he does become impure

for a

met mitzva,

even though by doing so he will nullify the mitzva of the Paschal offering or the mitzva of circumcision.

And Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan: If so,

with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden by the Temple service, is it not a matter of kal va-chomer 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 that it overrides the Temple service,

for if a priest wished to perform the service while he was liable to death, they would take him and execute 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 means of a kal va-chomer: If the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, is overridden by execution, as it is stated:

[Exodus 21]

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

Shabbat, which is overridden by the Temple service—

is it not a matter of kal va-chomer that execution should override it?

Rava said: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael already resolved this issue,

who taught that execution does not override Shabbat.

For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

[Exodus 35]

The Torah already said with regard to Shabbat: “You shall not kindle fire in any of your dwelling places,” and all forms of labor are included in this prohibition. If so, why did the verse state separately with regard to the labor of kindling:

“You shall not kindle fire

in any of your dwelling places on the day of Shabbat,”

what does it come to teach?

What lesson does this verse come to teach?

Before the Gemara cites the continuation of his words, it is astonished at his question and at his statement: Is it appropriate to ask regarding this verse

what does it come to teach?

But the tanna’im already disagreed about the novel teaching derived from this verse!

If it is according to Rabbi Yosei,

the verse comes to teach a great novelty: Kindling

was singled out as a prohibition,

to teach that for the labor of kindling on Shabbat one is not liable to execution; rather, it is punished only as a violation of a prohibition.

If it is according to Rabbi Natan,

then kindling

was singled out to distinguish,

to teach that one is liable to bring a sin-offering for each individual labor of Shabbat separately.

As it was taught in a beraita: “Kindling was singled out as a prohibition”; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

Rabbi Natan says: “It was singled out to distinguish.”

Kindling was written separately in order to teach with regard to the other labors that one is liable to bring a sin-offering for each one separately.

Rather, Rava said: The tanna

of the school of Rabbi Yishmael was troubled by the word

“dwelling places”

in the verse,

asking

what it comes to teach.

“Dwelling places,”

as the verse says, “in all your dwelling places,” teaches that the prohibition of kindling on Shabbat applies everywhere, including outside Eretz Yisrael;

what does it come to teach?

Now,

surely

Shabbat is an obligation of the person,

and its observance is not among those mitzvot dependent on the Land of Israel;

and an obligation of the person

obviously

applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

If so, why do I need

the word “dwelling places” that the Merciful One wrote?

The Gemara now cites the continuation of the beraita:

One student said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Since it is stated

[Deuteronomy 21]

“When there will be in a man a sin whose judgment is death, and he is executed,” I might understand

that the court executes him

both on a weekday and on Shabbat,

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

And how do I understand

[Exodus 31]

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

with regard to the other labors, excluding execution by the court.

Or perhaps it is not

so;

rather, even execution by the court

does not override Shabbat.

And how do I understand “and he is executed”— -

on a weekday, but not on Shabbat.

Or perhaps it applies even on Shabbat?

The verse therefore states: “You shall not kindle fire in any of your dwelling places.” And

later,

in the passage concerning the punishment of one who murders intentionally or unintentionally,

it

[the verse]

states:

[Numbers 35]

“These shall be for you a statute of judgment throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places.”

And we learn by means of a gzera shava based on the word “dwelling places”:

Just as,

like

the “dwelling places” stated there,

in the passage concerning a murderer, the reference is to a punishment administered by

the court, so too, “dwelling places” stated here,

with regard to kindling on Shabbat, refers to a punishment administered by

the court.

And the Merciful One said

with regard to the punishment carried out through kindling in execution by burning in the court,

“You shall not kindle fire in any of your dwelling places.”

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

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

And if Shabbat, which is overridden by the Temple service,—

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

is it not a matter of kal va-chomer that execution should not override it?

The Gemara raises an objection:

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

It answers:

That statement refers to an individual offering, which does not override Shabbat.

Rava said:

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

execution will not

override

even

an individual offering, by means of a kal va-chomer: