Commento su Esodo 31:14

מות יומת SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH by the judges if there are witnesses testifying to the desecration and if the warning required by law had been given to the culprit immediately before he committed the offence.

ושמרתם את השבת, there is yet another reason why the Sabbath regulations must not be overridden for the sake of completing the Tabernacle sooner;

ושמרתם את השבת,"And you shall observe the Sabbath, etc." Why did G'd repeat the need to observe the Sabbath by adding a new rationale, namely that it was holy? Seeing that immediately before this verse the Torah had permitted violation of the Sabbath laws for the sake of sick people, we might have concluded that the holiness of the Sabbath is relative, i.e. that when compared to a sick person the Sabbath is merely secular. As a result people would violate the Sabbath to prepare medications, etc., even when the life of the patient was not in danger. The Torah therefore underlined the holiness of the Sabbath to warn us not to violate its statutes unless there was danger to a patient's life.

ושמרתם את השבת, “you shall observe the Sabbath.” After the Torah had already written את שבתותי תשמרו, “observe My Sabbaths,” why was this commandment repeated? It teaches that there is an aspect to Sabbath observance prior to the Sabbath’s commencement just as there is an aspect of Sabbath observance immediately after the sun has already set. We are to add to the sanctity of the Sabbath by commencing to observe it even before sundown and we are to add to its sanctity at the end of the day by waiting until it is completely dark before declaring it over. Our sages in explaining the verse: “the column of cloud would not depart by day nor the column of fire by night,” (Exodus 13,22) explained in Shabbat 23 that the wording implies that the column of fire did not withdraw from its position until the column of cloud had taken up its position, whereas similarly, the column of fire did not depart from its position in the morning until the column of cloud was firmly in its assigned position. [There was no vacuum when neither column was in its place to perform its task for the Israelites. Rashi explains that the entire verse was unnecessary as the previous verse had already spelled out the function of each ”column.” Ed.].
Our sages (Yuma 81) also commented on the verse מערב עד ערב תשבתו שבתכם, “from evening till evening you shall rest on your Sabbath” (Leviticus 23,32), that at first glance we might have thought that this directive applied only to the Day of Atonement (where it was written). However, seeing that both the word תשבתו and the word שבתכם were really not needed to teach us this for the Day of Atonement, the extra words mean that the same rule applies to the festivals generally as well as to every Sabbath day. The extra word שבתכם means that every day of rest you observe shall be earmarked by a slight addition both at its commencement and at its end.

Provided there are witnesses and a warning. [Rashi knows this] because “Shall be cut off,” mentioned afterwards, is clearly a punishment by the hand of Heaven. If so, [we may infer that] “Shall be put to death” is a punishment by the hand of man. And man is executed only when there are witnesses and a warning is given. See Nachalas Yaakov, who explains why [is the double phrase] מות יומת written for the punishment of death by the hand of man.

V. 14. ושמרתם את השבת וגו׳, dem שבתותי des V. 13 gegenüber: darum bewahret, achtet, erhaltet, schützet, wachet über die Schabbatinstitution, denn sie ist euch ein Heiligtum, d. i. aus ihr fließt eure Gottheiligkeit und sie erhält und erneut die Heiligung eures ganzen persönlichen Wesens an Gott. מחלליה מות יומת כי כל העשה וגו׳, schwierig ist das כי, welches das כל העושה וגו׳ als Motiv zu מחלליה וגו׳ stellt. Indem מחלליה Plural, מות יומת aber Singular ist, kann מחלליה nicht Subjekt, sondern nur Objekt von יומת, dieses aber verbum impersonale sein: man soll diejenigen, die den Schabbat entweihen, gerichtlich töten. Somit ist in diesem Satze nicht sowohl von der Todeswürdigkeit der Schabbatentweiher, als von der Pflicht der Gesamtheit sie hinzurichten die Rede. Darin unterscheidet sich dieser Satz auch von dem כל העושה וגו׳ מות יומת des folgenden Verses. Nun dürfte ja חילול שבת, wörtlich ja "Ertötung des Schabbats" d. i. Vernichtung der lebendigen und belebenden Idee des Schabbats, in eigentlichem Sinne nur durch Verletzung desselben in Gegenwart anderer geschehen: es wird dadurch diesem Heiligtum im Gemüte anderer die Kraft geschwächt oder geraubt. Es spricht daher dieser Satz von der Entweihung des Schabbats vor Zeugen, die überall die Gesamtheit repräsentieren. Eine vor Zeugen geübte Schabbatentweihung heißt somit: vor Augen der Nation die Institution töten, auf deren Basis die ganze Nation mit ihrem Berufe und ihrer Bestimmung beruht, und die Nation hat die Pflicht, dem Schabbatentweiher das Hiersein zu vernichten und dadurch die Heiligkeit der Institution in ihrer Mitte wieder herzustellen. Gehört doch die Ertötung oder Belebung der Schabbatidee in den Gemütern nationaler Genossen als ein so wesentliches Moment mit zu den Zwecken der Schabbatinstitution, dass, wie bei keinem anderen Gesetze, außer dem begrifflich verwandten חילול השם, der Begriff פרהסיא einen so wesentlichen Einfluss übt, dass das Verbrechen der Schabbatentweihung בפרהסיא, d.i. vor dem Bewusstsein einer wirklichen nationalen Gesamtheit, d.i. zehn nationaler Genossen, geübt, מחלל שבת בפרהסיא, dem עובד עבודה זרה gleich geachtet ist und mit dem Gesamtjudentum gebrochen hat: מומר לכל התורה כולה. (In der מכילתא wird der Plural in מחלליה also gefasst, dass darin die Heiligkeit des Schabbats sich auf jeden Moment desselben also erstreckt, dass selbst, wenn ein Teil des Schabbats mit gesetzlicher Befugnis um פקוח נפש willen (siehe zu V. 17) hat verletzt werden müssen, darum doch der Rest des Tages in unangetasteter Heiligkeit bleibe: אפי׳ כהרף עין מחלליה מות יומת). Dem schließt sich nun das folgende mit motivierendem כי in dem Sinne an: wird die Schabbatentweihung vor Zeugen geübt, so hat das menschliche Gericht den Verbrecher aus dem Hiersein auszuscheiden; denn Gott gegenüber hat jeder, der am Schabbat, wenn auch von Menschen ungesehen, ein Werk verrichtet, sein Dasein und seine Zukunft verwirkt.

ושמרתם את השבת, “you must observe the Sabbath;” the reason that this has been repeated is to warn that anyone desecrating the Sabbath purposely and publicly, will be executed. If he does so secretly, he will be cut off from membership in the Jewish people and its eternal future by an act of G-d. Seeing that the penalty has already been spelled out, the warning not to become guilty of this sin and its penalty has to be spelled out also; hence the Torah writes not only: מחלליה מות יומת, but also: כל העושה בו מלאכה מות יומת, “anyone performing forbidden activities on it will be executed.” It does not matter whether such forbidden activity is carried out by day or by night. This is made clear by the repetition of ויום השביעי קודש, “the entire seventh day is holy.”

ונכרתה SHALL BE CUT OFF [FROM AMONG HIS PEOPLE] by God, if no such warning had been given (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 31:14:3).

כי קדש היא לכם, מחלליה מות יומת, the Sabbath is not only a holy day for you, i.e. it is not only a positive commandment to observe it, but is also a most important negative commandment, so much so that deliberate violation, desecration of it sanctity, is punishable by death. Seeing that building the Tabernacle is only a positive commandment, it is clear that a positive commandment cannot override something that is both a positive and a negative commandment.

מחלליה מות יומת כי כל העושה בה מלאכה ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, “anyone desecrating it shall be put to death; for anyone performing work on it, that soul shall be cut off, etc.” The meaning of the verse is that the penalty for deliberate desecration of the Sabbath is death by a human tribunal, provided there are witnesses who have warned the guilty party. If there were either no witnesses or no warning, the penalty is death at the hands of heaven (based on Rashi).

We can also understand this verse when considering something we learned in Menachot 64. The Talmud discusses a situation in which doctors estimated that the patient urgently needed figs [which had not yet been plucked off the tree; sometimes one stalk supports more than one fig, sometimes not. Ed.]. The question is raised that if two figs can be found each of which grows on a separate stalk, necessitating two separate pluckings, or there is a single stalk on which three figs grow, which is to be plucked? The Talmud answers that it is obvious that it is better to pluck the three figs which require only a single act of plucking, i.e. a single violation of the Sabbath. [I have quoted the Talmud correctly; the author, or at least the version I have at my disposal, quoted the Talmud incorrectly. Ed.] The author quotes a hypothetical situation where the patient needed to eat two figs in order to recover. There could be found either a) two figs growing on one stalk or b) 3 figs growing on one stalk. Would it be permissible to pluck the three figs seeing that they too grow on a single stalk and only a single violation of the Sabbath takes place? The answer the author gives is that one must pluck the two figs rather than the three. Although from the point of view of the prohibited work to be performed there is no difference if one plucks the stalk supporting three figs or the one supporting only two figs, the effect of the action is different. The Torah demands that "you shall observe the Sabbath," and this means that any work not necessary for the patient in question must not be undertaken, כי קדש היא, because of the sacred nature of the Sabbath. The Torah made the decision dependent on the nature of the Sabbath and not on the nature of the work performed. If one were to cut off more figs than needed this would be a desecration of the holiness of the Sabbath. The lesson from our verse is that the Sabbath does not lose its holiness even when it is being violated for the sake of a person whose life may be in danger unless we violated the Sabbath on his account.

מחלליה means, whosoever treats it as חול, ordinary, in so far as its sanctity is concerned.

כל העושה בה מלאכה ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, another reason for not desecrating the Sabbath in order to carry on with the building of the Tabernacle is the extremely heavy penalty associated with deliberate violation of the laws of the Sabbath. The reason for such a penalty is that anyone violating the concept of the Sabbath prohibitions thereby denies that I, G’d, created the universe out of no preexisting tangible substance. Anyone desecrating the Sabbath deliberately would never benefit from the existence of a building such as the Tabernacle. How could he claim a share in the G’d Who dwells in this Tabernacle?

מחלליה מות יומת. "those who desecrate it shall be executed." It is peculiar that the Torah first speaks about people who desecrate the Sabbath in the plural whereas it speaks of the penalty to be applied to a single violator. We may understand this in light of what we have just explained. There may be a person who was permitted to violate the Sabbath by plucking a stalk on which two figs grew which were needed by the sick person. This person plucked the stalk on which three figs grew, instead. A second person also plucked figs but not for a sick person. Both these people violated the Sabbath. Only one of the two is subject to the death penalty. The person who cut three figs for the patient instead of two is not guilty of the death penalty seeing that the basic act he engaged in when plucking the figs was not prohibited at that time for that purpose. In order to be liable for the death penalty the basic act must have been prohibited at that time.

מקרב עמיה, from those members of his people who are destined to live on in the world to come after their bodies are left behind on earth by their souls.

The plain meaning of the words is that the expression מחלליה plural, refers to people violating the Sabbath intentionally. Most people do not do this if warned of the penalty that follows. Therefore, concerning the individual, i.e. the exception who insists on going through with the violation after having been warned of the consequences, the Torah says that he is to be executed. A person who has deliberately violated the Sabbath and has not been warned is liable to the Karet penalty, i.e. he will die prematurely by Divine decree.

We may also attempt to understand the peculiar wording of our verse in light of Shabbat 106. The subject is the definition of the forbidden activity "hunting." The Talmud describes that a deer had entered a private domain, i.e. the courtyard of a Jew on the Sabbath. The entrance to the courtyard was wide enough to accomodate two people, so that if one sat in the entrance the deer could theoretically still escape by running past that individual. Once two people took up position in the entrance, the deer could no longer escape. The Talmud describes that the two people took up position in the entrance one after the other. In such a situation only the second person is considered as having violated the law against hunting. The word מחלליה plural, in our verse refers to desecrations of the Sabbath which necessitated the participation of more than one person. Inasmuch as only the last person's action completed the act of the violation, only that person is subject to the death penalty, i.e. מות יומת in the singular.

Our verse makes sense also in a different context, such as the one described in Beytzah 34. There several people combine to perform the forbidden work of cooking. One supplies the kindling, the other the flame, the third places the pot in position over the kindling, the fourth supplies the water. The Talmud concludes that if the person who supplies the flame was the last one, he alone is guilty of the violation whereas the others are all not liable to any penalty. When the Torah writes מחלליה, plural, as opposed to מות יומת singular, it may refer to a situation such as outlined in Beytzah.

מות יומת. "he will be executed." I have already explained in Exodus 21,12 why the Torah repeated the word, i.e. that while the person in question is guilty vis-a-vis Heaven, G'd has given the terrestrial tribunal authority to execute this person who had forfeited his life. This is in contrast with another type of person who has also forfeited his life where G'd did not delegate a human tribunal to carry out this judgment. By mentioning such an example in the very next verse, i.e. כל העושה בה מלאכה ונכרתה, it is clear why the word מות is repeated in our verse.

כי כל העושה בה מלאכה, "for whosoever performs any work on it, etc." The Torah underlines here that anyone desecrating the Sabbath when there are no witnesses should not jump to the conclusion that he will escape the death penalty and that he would not be considered any more culpable than someone who violates the positive and negative commandment of the sanctity of the Sabbath. The Torah says that this is not so, but that such a person will face the death penalty at the hands of G'd even if he had not been warned and his deed had not been witnessed here on earth. The clause of מות ימות in the singular which we described as a restrictive clause is applicable only to people who desecrate the Sabbath in public and after having been warned not to do so on pain of death by stoning. However, when a person commits a desecration such as we described when he cut off an extra fig which grew on the same stalk as the ones he was required to cut off, the death penalty does not apply to him even if he had been warned by competent witnesses not to do so. Seeing that the words העושה בה מלאכה suggest that there would not be any exception to the death penalty if the violation is performed knowingly, the Torah adds the word כי to alert us to the fact that such violations as cutting the extra fig by default, (without an additional action by the person cutting it) do not carry the karet penalty.