Halakhah su Ecclesiaste 10:8

And there are a few limbs in the beast [with] much blood, which all of Israel is accustomed to extract the blood in them with the power of fire before they cook them in the pot, and they did not want to rely on salting alone for them - and these are the brain and the liver. They roast them a little on the fire and afterwards cook them - whether they wanted to cook them on their own or with other meat. And the custom of Israel is Torah. If he transgressed and cooked them with other meat after salting alone, it is all permissible - and [that is] so long as he did not plan to do so at the outset, so that the matter return to [be permitted] for him ex post facto after the cooking. As with regards to anyone who does this with prohibitions, we forbid it all for him, as if it were at the outset. And I read upon him, 'one who breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake.'

And this commandment is practiced by Torah writ in every place and at all times by males. And by females, it is a doubt among our Rabbis whether they are obligated by Torah writ or not. And a man that transgresses this and eats [nourishing] food but does not recite a blessing after it has nullified this positive commandment. And a woman who transgressed and did not recite a blessing has violated a rabbinic commandment, and maybe a Torah commandment. And so [too,] anyone who read Torah in the morning before he recited the blessings that were fixed over the Torah or the blessing 'Everlasting love' (which serves a substitute) has violated a Torah commandment. And therefore one who forgot if he recited the blessing over the Torah in the morning or not goes back and recites the blessing. And one who transgressed and did not recite any of the other blessings in the world besides the ones we mentioned has only violated a commandment of the Sages, but "one who breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake" (Ecclesiastes 10:8). And He, may He be blessed, warned about it, 'measure for measure.' And one must be very careful from mentioning a blessing in vain; since there is a severe punishment in the matter, as he mentions the name of [God] for no reason. And the Sages associated (Berakhot 33a) the thing with the negative commandment of "You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.' And come and see how careful the early generations were with this, as behold, Shimshon the Nazirite of God married a Philistine woman that he loved in the stream of Sorek. And [yet] he was so careful in mentioning the name of God, not to mention it at all - whether it was necessary or not necessary - that Delilah recognized that he told her everything [in] his heart, by his mentioning God in his words, when he said to her (Judges 16:17), "because I am a nazarite of God" - and as it is written after it (Judges 16:18), "And she saw that he had told her everything that was [in] his heart." And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sotah 9b), "And from where did she know?" And there were those of them that [answered that] words of truth are recognizable, and some of them that said [it was] because Shimshon mentioned God among his words - and even though he did not say it by way of an oath, but by way of a narrative.

From the laws of the commandment is, for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Rebels 1:2), "'According to the instruction that they instruct you' - these are the decrees and the practices; 'and to the judgement' - these are the things they shall teach from the [Torah] law, through one of the methods that the Torah is expounded; 'from the thing they tell you' - this is the tradition that they received, one man from the mouth of another man." And [also] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 88b) that at the time that the Great Court is in Jerusalem, any disagreement that existed in any court in its place is asked of the Great Court, and we act according to their word. But now that, on account of our iniquities, there is no court there, any disagreement that there be between the sages in our generations - and the ones that disagree be equal in wisdom - if we are not fit to decide among them and we do not know to where the judgement inclines, we should follow the stringent [opinion] concerning a Torah [law], and follow the lenient [opinion] in scribal (rabbinic) law. And that which they said (Mishnah Eduyot 1:5) that a court is not permitted to revoke that which was forbidden by a court that preceded it, even if it appears to its opinion that the thing is not forbidden according to the letter of the law - so long as it appears that the prohibition has spread in Israel - unless it is greater in wisdom and also in numbers (is composed of more judges) than the court that forbade the thing. And about what are these words speaking, that [the later court] can revoke [it] when [the later court] is greater than [the first court] in wisdom and numbers? When the earlier court did not forbid that thing in order to make a fence for the people for [other] prohibitions. And since this is the law, it is incumbent upon each and every court in its generation to examine the matter and investigate much and to pay attention to each [rabbinic] prohibition that it appears the generation is practicing, not to breach and instruct to be lenient about it (to permit it), lest the [court] that was before it forbade it to make a fence for the people, [and] knew that the thing is permissible by the letter of the law. And 'one who breaches a fence, etc.' And the rest of the details of the commandment are at the end of Sanhedrin (the chapter [entitled] HaNehenakin.)