Êxodo 31:14 Referências do Talmudee: Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin, Jerusalem Talmud Terumot, Jerusalem Talmud Megillah & Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

“If they warned him and he remained silent, they warned him and he nodded his head, even if he said, I know, he cannot be prosecuted unless he say: for that purpose I am doing it.²⁴Tosephta 11:2. Cf. also Note 20.” “If they saw him spilling blood; they told him, know that he is a son of the Covenant²⁵A Jew. and the Torah said, he who spills a man’s blood, by man his blood shall be spilled²⁶Gen. 9:6. The quote seems to be slightly out of place since it is directed at Gentile criminal courts which are not under the severe restrictions imposed at Torah courts., even if he said, I know, he cannot be prosecuted unless he say: for that purpose I am doing it²⁷Tosephta 11:4..” “If they saw him desecrating the Sabbath; they told him, know that today is Sabbath and the Torah said, its desecrators shall be put to death²⁸Ex. 31:14., even if he said, I know, he cannot be prosecuted unless he say: for that purpose I am doing it²⁹Tosephta 11:3..”

There⁵²Mishnah Megillah 1:5. The statement means that everything forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on the Day of Atonement, but not vice-versa. Infraction of the laws of the Sabbath is a capital crime but punishment for infraction of the laws of the Day of Atonement is in the hands of Heaven. The question is, how far do we equate the possibility of a death sentence by an earthly court with one by the Heavenly court., we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment.” What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina said, a menstruating girl is between them⁵³If the seduced or raped almost adult girl was impure because of her period, the rapist or seducer is subject to extirpation, Lev. 20:18.. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them⁵⁴While punishment for sexual relations with the wife’s sister during the lifetime of the wife is not spelled out in the verse, Lev. 18:18, all incest prohibitions enumerated in Lev. 18 are subject to Lev. 18:29: “For anybody who will commit any of these abominations, persons acting thus will be exterminated from the midst of their people.” (Rashi on Mishnah Keritut1:1.). In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started⁵⁵While everything will become permitted again after the end of the Sabbath, nothing will be permitted as long as the Sabbath lasts. But the menstruating almost adult will become permitted again when cleansed from her impurity, in most cases while she still is an almost adult girl., so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath⁵⁶While desecration of the Sabbath is a capital crime, if prosecution is impossible for lack of cautioning or of eye witnesses it is a case for extirpation by Heaven, (Ex. 31:14): “Keep the Sabbath because it is holy for you; its desecrator shall be put to death. Anybody doing work on it shall be extirpated from the midst of his people.” and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.

⁶⁰The commentators declare the text in Ketubot as original and the one here corrupt. However, the Babli in Ketubot 33a–36a seems more to refer to a text like the one in Terumot which is preferable as lectio difficilior. On the other hand, the last paragraph of the Halakhah shows that the text here is copied from Ketubot. Therefore, both versions have to be explained. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about prohibitions and extirpation⁶¹The text here is based on the earlier text excluding payment in death penalty cases, Note 19. In the Babli, Ketubot 34b/35a, this is deduced as above and in addition from Ex. 21:22–23, where payment is due if a pregnant woman is injured and an abortion is caused, but no payment is due if the woman is murdered.? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty⁶¹The text here is based on the earlier text excluding payment in death penalty cases, Note 19. In the Babli, Ketubot 34b/35a, this is deduced as above and in addition from Ex. 21:22–23, where payment is due if a pregnant woman is injured and an abortion is caused, but no payment is due if the woman is murdered., so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation⁶²In the Babli, Ketubot 35a, only R. Simeon ben Laqish accepts this reasoning; R. Joḥanan admits payment concurrent with extirpation.
The text in Ketubot deals with the situation in which a simple transgression for which the punishment is flogging is combined with a transgression punishable by extirpation and there was cautioning for the first but not for the second; can the flogging be executed? There is no question that flogging is the earthly punishment for most extirpation transgressions, as stated in Mishnah Makkot 3:16: “All those subject to extirpation who were flogged became free from extirpation, as it is written (Deut. 25:3): ‘that your brother should not be degraded in your eyes;’ after he was flogged he is your brother.”.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases⁶³In the Babli, Ketubot 35b, this is deduced from the Mishnah which assigns a fine to a brother who seduced his sister which, in absence of witnesses, is an extirpation case.
For the Ketubot text it is obvious that a capital crime can never lead to a sentence of flogging since no sentence can be delivered without the testimony of two witnesses. If there were witnesses it would be a case for the death penalty; without witnesses it is a case for the Heavenly court.. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young⁶⁴Slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is a simple transgression, Lev. 22:28. Idolatrous sacrifices are capital crimes. for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases⁶⁵The prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day also applies to profane slaughter; it is unrelated to the prohibition of idolatry. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Ḥulin 81b, where it is pointed out that the case discussed must be that the first animal was slaughtered for food but the second for idolatry; only in that case does one act result in two transgressions., there it is one case⁶⁶The disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish is the case that there is only one transgression which, however, cannot be prosecuted in criminal court for lack of eye witnesses..