출애굽기 35:37의 Halakhah

Halakhically, "work" is defined as any of the procedures employed in the fashioning and erection of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. Exodus 35:1–3, which reiterates the prohibition against "work" on the Sabbath, forms a preamble to the directives governing the specifications for the construction of the Tabernacle and its utensils. The Sages comment that the juxtaposition of these scriptural sections teaches that Sabbath regulations are not suspended for the purpose of constructing the Tabernacle. "Work" which is forbidden on the Sabbath is then defined as the activities involved in the construction of the Tabernacle. These activities, thirty-nine broad categories in number, ranging from planting to baking, from shearing to tearing for purposes of sewing, from trapping animals to cutting their hides, as well as numerous derivatives, were enumerated, defined, and transmitted to Moses as part of the Oral Law. To this list were added rabbinic enactments prohibiting other activities. These rabbinic decrees were variously designed as "a bridge around the Law" or as a means of promoting the Sabbath spirit.

R. Meir Simchah of Dvinsk, in his biblical novellae, Meshekh Hokhmah, Exod. 35:2, offers an interesting scriptural foundation for this prohibition, demonstrating that, while not a penal crime, the killing of a fetus is punishable by "death at the hands of heaven." ⁶However, cf. R. Samuel Strashun, Mekorei ha-Rambam le-Rashash (Jerusalem, 1957), p. 45, who writes that although feticide is biblically forbidden “perhaps there is no punishment even ‘at the hands of heaven.’ ” He observes that Scripture invariably refers to capital punishment by employing the formula "mot yumat—he shall surely be put to death." The use of the single expression "yumat—he shall be put to death" as, for example, in Exodus 21:29, is understood in rabbinic exegesis as having reference to death at the hands of heaven. Thus, R. Meir Simchah argues, the verse "and he that smiteth a man shall be put to death—yumat" (Lev. 24:21) is not simply a reiteration of the penalty for homicide but refers to such destruction of life which is punishable only at the hands of heaven, i.e., the killing of a fetus. Reference to the fetus as "a man" poses no difficulty since the fetus is indeed described as "a man" in the above cited verse (Gen. 9:6) prescribing death for feticide under the Noachide Code.

And the manner of their count is that we count the four death penalties as four positive commandments. And the language of the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 49b) is, "This is the commandment of those stoned." And likewise did they say (Sanhedrin 52a), "How was the commandment of those burnt, how was the commandment of those stangled, how was the commandment of those killed?" And they also said (Sanhedrin 35b) that what He, may He be blessed, said, "You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements" (Exodus 35:3) came to prohibit the punishments on Shabbat. And that which He prohibited the commandment of burning and said, "throughout your settlements," was to say - in the settlement that is a court, do not kindle a fire - even though [the kindling is part of] a positive commandment. They said, "Burning was within a category. So why was it singled out? [Because] just like burning is specified in that it is one of the four death penalties of the court and does not push off the Shabbat, so too do the other death penalties of the court not push off Shabbat." And this is clear, such that no one should have a doubt about it. And likewise is it appropriate to count lashes as a commandment. But it is inappropriate to count every specific punishment as a separate commandment, until we would say, for example, that the commandment that we have been commanded to stone those that profane the Shabbat is a positive commandment, the stoning of someone with an ov is another commandment and the stoning of idolatry is a third, to the point where the count of the commandments would be according to the [classes of] people that are liable for the death penalties of the court - as did someone besides us without contemplation. For if the matter would be like this, it would be appropriate to also perforce count each and every set of lashes on its own, to the point that the lashes for eating a carcass would be a separate commandment, the lashes for eating pork would be a second commandment, the lashes the eating of meat in milk would be a third and the lashes for wearing a forbidden mixture (shatnez) would be a fourth. And for him, the positive commandments should then be according to the count of negative commandments for which we give lashes; and then the positive commandments would perforce be more than four hundred. But just like we do not count all those liable for lashes, but rather only count the type of punishment - and that is lashes - so too do we only count the types of death penalties. And those are stoning, burning, killing (decapitation) and strangulation.

Members of Hatzoloh (New York’s Jewish volunteer ambulance corps) asked Rav Moshe Feinstein if they could drive home after completing a rescue mission on Shabbat (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:80). Rav Moshe presented an original interpretation of the Gemara, Tosafot, and Rambam mentioned above and concluded that one may even violate Biblical prohibitions, such as driving, when returning from a rescue mission.¹⁵Driving a car repeatedly violates the Biblical prohibition of hav’arah (kindling a fire; Shemot 35:3), as every push of the accelerator feeds more fuel to the engine.

That the court not administer a death sentence on the Shabbat: That the judges not administer sentences on Shabbat, meaning to say that they not kill on the Shabbat one who has been made liable for the death penalty by the court, as it is stated (Exodus 35:3), "You shall not kindle fire throughout your settlements on the Shabbat day." And the explanation comes about this (Yevamot 6b) that the court should not burn someone who has become liable for burning. And the same is true for the other death penalties. And it is [correct] for us to expound this thing from [this verse]; as behold, it is not necessary for itself, as behold, it is already written in another place, "you shall not do work" (Exodus 20:10) - and kindling is for the sake of work. Rather, it is written to teach [another] matter. And they explained about it that it came to teach us this [matter] that we said. And this is the language of Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 35:3:2 (at the beginning of Parshat Vayakhel): "'You shall not kindle fire' - burning was in the general category [of forbidden work], yet it was [specified, in order] to teach that just like burning is particular in that it is one of the death penalties of the court and [we see here] that it does not push off the Shabbat, so too all of the other death penalties do not push off the Shabbat." And even with all that we have learned in this verse, it should also be expounded [for] that which they also expounded on it (Yevamot 6b), "Kindling was [specified] to separate" - meaning to say that one who does many principle categories of work at one time in one forgetful spell would be liable a sin-offering for each and every [type of] work by itself. And in the Gemara of the Westerners they said (Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:6), "'In all of your settlements' - Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Yannai, 'From here [we learn] about courts, that they should not judge on Shabbat.'"

At the beginning of Parashat Vayakhel (Exodus 35:1) it is written, "And Moshe gathered etc. these are the things that the Lord commanded you to do: six days you shall do your melakhah and the seventh day should be holy to you etc." And the explanation is that God commanded them concerning the construction of the Mishkan and on Shabbat it was forbidden to do any of the constructive labors for the mishkan as is explained in the Midrash Mechilta. And from here we learn the tradition of the Sages to learn the general principles and great ideas of the labors of Shabbat. for from the juxtaposition of the matter of Shabbat and the construction of the Mishkan we learn that the forbidden labors of Shabbat were labors done in constructing the Mishkan. And so our Sages taught (Shabbat 49b): One is not liable other than for performing a labor of a variety that was done in the Mishkan. They sowed, you shall not sow. And sowing was done for the mishkan in order to plant ingredients needed for fabric dyes (according to Rashi). They reaped, you shall not reap etc. And from here we learned the 39 central categories of labor that were important for the mishkan (see the beginning of Bava Kama). and even though some of the melakhot are similar to each other such as winnowing, sorting, and sifting, for all of them are the removal of food from waste but the separating is done differently. Winnowing is by means of the wind and sorting is by hand and sifting is with a sieve. Nonetheless, since they were all distinct and important tasks in the Mishkan, they are all called Avot Melakhot (primal paradigmatic categories), and the other forms of labor that are comparable to the paradigms are called derivatives (toladot). (See Shabbat 73b).