Talmud su Esodo 16:28

Is bringing it from outside the Sabbath domain a matter of Sabbath rest⁵⁸Since the argument of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua is about rabbinic restrictions because of Sabbath rest, it is implied that the list of items in Mishnah 2 about which R. Eliezer dissents contains only rabbinic prohibitions. But bringing anything from outside the Sabbath domain is a biblical prohibition.? ⁵⁹The next sentences are from Eruvin 3, Notes 127–131. This supports what Rebbi Jonathan said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose ben Laqonia: One whips because of Sabbath domains as word of the Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder said to him, but for Sabbath there is only stoning or extirpation! He said to him, is there not written⁶⁰Ex. 12:9. This belongs to the discussion there whether all pentateuchal prohibitions are legally prosecutable, or only those formulated as לֹא whereas those introduced by the negation אַל are simply moral obligations. Since the latter then cannot be enforced in court by biblical standards, they are equal in rank to rabbinic prohibitions., do not eat from it raw? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל! He said to him, is there not written⁶¹Ex. 16:28., stay everybody where he is, no person shall leave his place on the Seventh day? He said to him, is there written לֹא? No, it is written אַל. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, nevertheless each one kept to his tradition⁶²This is the end of the parallel in Eruvin3.. Is cutting its wart with an implement a matter of Sabbath rest⁶³This is making a wound, biblically forbidden under the category of slaughtering.? Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated only carrying it and bringing it; therefore not cutting its wart⁶⁴In Mishnah 1, he does not read “cutting its wart”.. That is because he thinks it⁶⁵Cutting the wart. Everybody agrees that biting off the wart is unprofessional, therefore does not create liability, and is only rabbinically forbidden. is with an implement. Therefore if he were not of the opinion that it was with an implement, would it be a matter of Sabbath rest? ⁶⁶Quoted from Eruvin 10(7), Note 64. It is stated there that cutting the wart creates liability only if done professionally with a surgeon’s knife. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, where do they disagree? If he removed it with an implement. But if another person removed it it is disgusting⁶⁷Therefore not causing biblical liability. Babli Šabbat 94b., and is not the sacrifice another? Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference because there is written “a sacrifice”. Rebbi Mana said, sprinkling⁶⁸Purifying a person impure by the impurity of the dead by sprinkling with water containing of the ashes of the Red Cow. In Second Temple times this was a public act (Mishnah Parah 11:4) not performed on the Sabbath. is a matter of Sabbath rest, and these are because of Sabbath rest. Sprinkling is pushed aside⁶⁹If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath and a person’s seventh day of impurity falls on that day, he may not be purified by sprinkling, but this is not biblically forbidden, and he has to celebrate his Pesaḥ on the 14th of Iyar. Cf. Mishnaiot 3,4. but these should not be pushed aside? Only that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices. The word of Rebbi Zeˋira implies that there is no difference between sacrifice and sacrificer: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated Bar Qappara’s before Rebbi Zeˋira: I wonder how Rebbi Eliezer received Rebbi Joshua’s answer that these are about the sacrifice and this is for the person who sacrifices⁷⁰Since R. Joshua’s argument is about the slaughterer, not the animal being slaughtered.? He told him, Bar Qappara was wondering, Rebbi Eliezer was not wondering⁷¹Their discussion makes sense only if there is no difference whether one speaks about sacrifice or sacrificer. This confirms what R. Zeˋira said..