Talmud sobre Êxodo 35:36

⁷This paragraph and the next are from Šabbat 7:2 (9c, 1. 11 ff.), as will be seen in the commentary. The variant readings refer to that text. The introductory section is from Šabbat 7:1 (9a, 1. 20–24), the one variant in spelling there is noted by: א.
Mishnah Šabbat 7:2 states that on the Sabbath, 39 different activities are forbidden. This means that a person who violates the Sabbath unintentionally may be liable for up to 39 purification sacrifices. The question then appears whether in other cases multiple sacrifices also are necessary. Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting⁸He committed idolatry but forgot that sacrificing, burning incense, and pouring libations are forbidden as idolatrous actions, or he was conscious that these acts are part of idolatry but forgot that idolatry was forbidden., he is guilty for each action separately⁹In the Babli, Šabbat 72a, Sanhedrin 62a, the positions of R. Joḥanan and R. Zakkai are switched.. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands¹⁰Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan. and were broken. He is guilty only once! ¹¹The sentences in braces are unintelligible here; they refer to and are quoted from a discussion in Šabbat 7:1 (fol. 9a) which deals with the introductory sentence to the chapter of purification offerings, Lev. 4:2: “Speak to the Children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally against any commandments of the Eternal that are not to be broken, and did from any one, from those.” This implies that sometimes a purification offering is due for violating one prohibition, and sometimes one sacrifice is valid for a number of those. In general, the answer depends on what was unintentional. If a person does not know that today is Sabbath, for all he does wrong he owes one sacrifice. If he knows that it is Sabbath but forgot what is forbidden, he owes one sacrifice for each category of forbidden work. The problem is first whether this principle also applies to idolatry, the sacrifice for which is not described in Lev. 4 but in Num. 15:22–26, and second what is the status of the details enumerated in the Second Commandment, in particular why a detail, “do not prostrate yourself before them” is mentioned before the principle “do not serve them”.{Before he broke¹²The reference to “breaking” here is a continuation of R. Joḥanan’s criticism of Rav Zakkai (who in the Babli is Rebbi Zakkai): If the Second Commandment is considered a unit, there are no “those” to be applied to idolatry. If all activities mentioned are separate rules, how can one bring only one sacrifice? in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work¹³Ex. 20:10.,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,¹⁴Ex. 35:3.” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual¹⁵A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty¹⁶Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. Also here¹⁷Regarding idolatry.: “Do not worship them,¹⁸Ex. 20:5.” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,¹⁸Ex. 20:5.” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty¹⁶Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. He answered¹⁹R. Ze‘ira, answering R. Abba bar Mamal. The translation follows the text in Šabbat.: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail²⁰In the same sentence. If “prostrating” had been mentioned after “serving”, the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”.. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”²¹Ex. 34:14.? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar²²Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Ex. 20:5.. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle²³Therefore, the 9th principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle.. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether ²⁴Text from Šabbat.[He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle²⁵This really is the case for the Second Comandment.]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven²⁶The prohibition refers to performing for idolatry any ceremony commanded for the worship of Heaven. The case of R. Zakkai really has no connection with the argument about the status of the mention of prostrating oneself in the Second Commandment..

“With his lips but not in his mind.” I could think that I exclude him who decides in his mind; the verse says (Lev. 5:4): “To articulate”. But Samuel said, he who decides in his mind is not obligated until he pronounces with his lips. But did we not state: “(Ex. 35:5) Everyone who volunteers in his mind,” that is he who decides in his mind. You say, that is he who decides in his mind, but maybe that is he who pronounces with his lips? When he says (Deut. 23:24): “What comes out from your lips you have to keep,” that speaks about him who pronounces with his lips. Therefore, how can I confirm “every one who volunteers in his mind?” That is he who decides in his mind. What Samuel said refers to a sacrifice.

From where these things? He did one, and did these, and did of these. He did one, to obligate for each one separately; and did these, to obligate for all of them together²⁶Lev. 4:2 reads: If a person should sin inadvertently against any of the prohibitions of the Eternal and did one of these. The complicated structure of this verse is analyzed in detail in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parshata 1, Pereq 1. The analysis of the Yerushalmi is attributed in the Babli 103b to R. Yose ben Ḥanina, mentioned at the end of the preceding Paragraph. Echoes of the discussion in Sifra are in the Babli 70a.
The questions raised about the verse are twofold. If it had simply said and did one, we would have inferred that every single infraction needs a separate sacrifice. If it had said and did these, all infractions committed in one state of inadvertence would be covered by one sacrifice. The mention of one in parallel with these creates a seeming contradiction. In addition, in each case the prefix מ “of” in standard rabbinic interpretation is read as “not all”. Then what does it mean that a single prohibition is partially violated?. Of these, to obligate for derivatives²⁷The last question is easily answered for the Sabbath. Later in the Chapter the forbidden actions on the Sabbath are described by 39 categories. The particular actions labelling the categories are called אַב מְלָאכָה “primary actions”; any other action subsumed under the same category is a תּוֹלְדָה “derivative”. All actions subsumed under the same category are considered identical in some abstract sense even if they actually are very different; e. g. plucking feathers from a bird is forbidden as a derivative of shearing. Any one of the actions subsumed under one category triggers the liability for a sacrifice; it is not necessary that all actions carrying the same label be acted on. On the other hand, most actions trigger liability only if a certain minimum of work was done, as will be detailed in the following Chapters; an action which is too insignificant remains forbidden but does not trigger liability for a sacrifice.. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken²⁸The expression is difficult to understand since one does not cross rivers (in this case Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan) by hand but by boat. Since the expression is confirmed later in the Chapter and in Nazir 6:1, it cannot be emended. It seems that Rav (not Rebbi) Zakkai swam crossing the rivers on his way to Palestine.; he is liable only once²⁹Sanhedrin Chapter 7:11 Note 256. Worshipping strange deities in the way prescribed for Jewish worship in all its forms is one and the same offense. But worshipping strange deities in their own characteristic ways is a separate offense for each deity.. Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one³⁰Since the question was raised whether Lev. 4:2 could be interpreted to refer only to idolatry the answer seems to be in the negative, since for R. Zakkai there are only single offenses (one) and no general category (these) whereas for R. Joḥanan the situation is the inverse, in contrast to the Sabbath when liability for a sacrifice can be triggered either by a single action (one) or by a multiplicity of different actions all falling under the same category (these).. But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them³¹Since in the Second Commandment prostration is mentioned before worship of strange deities it clearly is a separate offense. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:11 Notes 252 ff.. Like prostration to obligate for partial action³²It is punishable even if not executed in the full manner prescribed for the Temple, lying down flat with outstretched arms and legs.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written³³Lev. 4:3., if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people … he has to bring a bull. This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat³⁴Horaiot Mishnah 2:8.. They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives³⁵Fat is forbidden if it is from an animal whose kind is acceptable as a sacrifice and which is of the kind exactly prescribed in Lev. to be burned on the altar. There are no extensions or derivatives.. For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse³⁶Forbidden sexual relations are exactly those described in Lev. 18. In addition in Lev. 20:18 the sex act is defined at touching of sexual organs; the only actions triggering the liability for a sacrifice are explicitly spelled out in the verses; there are no categories nor derivatives. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:5 (Notes 72–85).. The colleagues say, a Sabbath it is for the Eternal, to obligate for each single Sabbath³⁷Lev. 23:3. Since the attempt to derive the rules of the Mishnah from Lev. 4:2 ran into difficulties, they propose a direct interpretation of verses referring to the Sabbath only.. Rebbi Ila said, it is written³⁸Ex. 35:2. The Sabbath is mentioned in the singular.: Anybody doing work on it shall by put to death, not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate³⁹That Sabbaths do not combine means that if somebody did less than a punishable amount of work on one Sabbath and again less than a punishable amount the next Sabbath they do not add up to the liability for a sacrifice even if the actions were committed in the same period of oblivion of the rules of the Sabbath. In this the rules of the Sabbath parallel the rules of forbidden fat. Eating forbidden fat triggers the liability for a sacrifice only if a minimum was eaten within the time of a meal (defined as time needed to eat half a loaf of bread, Horaiot 3:3 Note 66). Less than minimum amounts eaten at different times do not trigger liability. On the other hand, once liability was triggered within one period of oblivion, it automatically covers all other offenses of the same kind during the same period of oblivion. The question is now asked whether if an inadvertent desecration of the Sabbath triggered the obligation of a sacrifice and the perpetrator did not become aware of his offense before committing the same also on another Sabbath, he is liable for only one or for several sacrifices?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun⁴⁰Since the father is known in the Babli as Rabin, the reading of G, בין, seems better than the reading everywhere in the Leiden ms., בון. said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi: May one read this and not be ashamed³⁰In B: afraid. In the biblical narrative, all good actions are ascribed to individuals, the bad to the entire people.? In a good sense, every one of goodwill³¹Ex. 35:5.; in a bad sense, all the people took off the gold rings in their ears³²Ex. 32:3.. In a good sense, Moses led the people out³³Ex. 19:1.; in a bad sense, all of you ganged up against me³⁴Deut. 1:22.. In a good sense, then Moses and the Children of Israel sang³⁵Ex. 15:1.; in a bad sense, the entire congregation started wailing³⁶Num. 14:1.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, indeed they got up early to destroy³⁷Zeph. 3:7.. Any destructive action they made early in the morning. Rebbi Abba bar Aḥa said, one cannot understand the character of this people; they are asked for the {golden} calf and are giving, for the Sanctuary and are giving. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina stated this baraita:³⁸To answer R. Ḥiyya bar Abba’s question. You shall make a cover of pure gold³⁹Ex. 25:17., may the gold of the cover come and atone for the gold of the calf.

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it does not say “this is the word” but these are the words.¹⁰³Ex. 35:1, the introductory paragraph which indicates that the Sabbath prohibitions may not be violated in building the Tabernacle, and which therefore forms the basis of the list of the 39 categories from an analysis of the activities needed to build the Tabernacle and to serve in it.” “Word”, “words,” “words”. From here about categories and derivatives¹⁰⁴The plural indicates that each category stands for many different actions, Babli 70a, 97b. (In the Appendix to Yalqut Šimony published by L. Ginzberg in שרידי הירושלמי p. 316 the reading is מכאן לאבות מלאכות “from here for categories”, the plural only indicates that there are different categories of work on the Sabbath.). Rebbi Ḥanina of Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. Alef is one, Lamed is 30, He is five, “word” is one, “words” are two¹⁰⁵The gematria (numerical value if each letter is used as a numeral in the Alexandrian system) of אלה is 36; one has somehow to find another 3 to reach the traditional number of 39.. From here the 39 “works” written in the Torah. The rabbis of Caesarea say, at its place nothing is missing, א is one, ל 30 , ח 8. The rabbis never hesitate to identify ה and ¹⁰⁶Cf. Peah 7:6 Note 113, Maˋaser Šeni 5:3, Soṭah 8:4 Note 179. In all other occurrences of substitution of ח for ה one obtains a word which makes sense; this cannot be said here (Babli Berakhot 32a).ח.

May one light an idle candle⁸⁹A candle lit for no particular purpose.? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. A baraita disagreed with Ḥizqiah: “Do not make fire in all of your dwelling places on Sabbath day⁹⁰Ex. 35:3.. On the Sabbath you may not make fire, but you make fire on a holiday.⁹¹The last baraita in Mekhilta dR. Ismael.” If you would say, we deal with cases connected with food, is there not written, only what can be eaten by any breathing being, that alone may be made by you⁹²Ex. 12:16.. Therefore what we are dealing with an idle candle⁹³The argument goes as follows. From the verse quoted first we infer that making a fire is forbidden only on the Sabbath, therefore not on the holiday. The verse quoted second implies that one has to cook, and therefore make fire, on a holiday. If the permission to make fire were restricted to the preparation of food, the inference from the first verse would not be needed. Therefore the permission to make fire extends to fire not needed for the preparation of food; e. g., for lighting. This still does not cover permission for candles lit for no particular purpose.. Rebbi Avuna said, it was stated there⁹⁴The reference is to Mishnai 1:6, where the House of Hillel argue that carrying from a private into the public domain is permitted for any purpose since it is permitted to transport food. Similarly they must argue that making a fire is permitted for any purpose since it is permitted for making food. This still requires an argument that a candle lit for no particular purpose still increases the enjoyment of the holiday., the House of Shammai forbid but the House of Hillel permit. Rebbi Naḥum the brother of Rebbi Ila asked before Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to him, do neither forbid nor permit⁹⁵One cannot forbid since one follows the teachings of the House of Hillel. One cannot permit since there is no proof that a candle lit for no particular purpose increases the enjoyment of the holiday. (As noted earlier, the permission to make fire does not include permission to generate new fire, Note 85.).

It was stated⁸⁹The main tannaїtic source is Sifra Wayyiqra דבורא דחובה פרשה ט. The argument is discussed in Babli Ševu‘ot 26b.: “With his lips but not in his mind.” I could think that I exclude him who decides in his mind, the verse says (Lev. 5:4): “To articulate⁹⁰The verse reads: “Or a person who might swear to articulate with his lips for bad or good, about all a man might articulate in an oath, when he forgot and then remembered about any of these.” Since articulate is used twice in the same verse it is assumed that the second mention is not identical with the first. Since the first mentions lips, the second cannot speak about the same situation. {Biblical dictionaries tend to define בטא as “speaking hastily” on basis of Prov. 12:18. However, as Rashi points out, the context requires:
(17) “He who breathes trust will tell the truth
but a false witness trickery.
(18) There is one who articulates like sword thrusts
but the tongue of the Sages is healing.”
The chiastic arrangement of the verses shows that they form a unit. Therefore, the rabbinic use of the word as “carefully articulated” is borne out by biblical usage. Cf. also Arabic بطو “to be slow-going.”}”. But Samuel said, he who decides in his mind is not obliged until he pronounces with his lips. But did we not state: “(Ex. 35:5) Everyone who volunteers in his mind⁹¹The verse is quoted incorrectly (it must be לבו not לב). The verse speaks of voluntary gifts for the Tabernacle; explicit pledges are never mentioned there.,” that is he who decides in his mind. You say, that is he who decides in his mind, but maybe that is he who pronounces with his lips? When he says (Deut. 23:24): “What comes out from your lips you have to keep⁹²“What comes out from your lips you have to keep as you made a vow of a voluntary gift to the Eternal your God, as you pronounced with your mouth.” A voluntary gift here is a sacrifice; the verse insists that such a vow is valid only if pronounced.,” that speaks about him who pronounces with his lips. Therefore, how can I confirm “every one who volunteers in his mind?” That is he who decides in his mind. What Samuel said refers to a sacrifice.

¹¹⁶Babli Yoma 66b; Num.rabba 9(53). A lady asked Rebbi Eliezer, why did one sin of the golden calf lead to three different kinds of death¹¹⁷In the aftermath of the sin of the golden calf, it is stated (1) that the Levites killed about 3000 men (Ex. 32:28), (2) that the people died of a plague (Ex. 32:35), (3) that Moses ground the golden calf into dust, spread it on water and let the people drink, in imitation of the soṭah ritual (Ex. 32:20).? He said to her, the wisdom of a woman is only in her spinning rod, as is written: “All wise women span with their hands.¹¹⁸Ex. 35:25. R. Eliezer intended to insult the woman who had dared to study Torah (In the Babli, she is called “a wise woman” and her question is dealt with at length by Rashi in his commentary on the Pentateuch). It is not clear whether this represents the general teaching of the House of Shammai or that of R. Eliezer alone.
Since it is common practice to teach Pentateuch and its interpretation to girls it is impossible to understand how Maimonides and Joseph Caro could have R. Eliezer’s statement included in their Codes.” His son Hyrkanos said to him, in order not to give her an answer you made me lose 300 kor of tithes every year¹¹⁹The lady must have been exeedingly rich if her tithes, given to a Cohen, amounted to 300 kor or 9’000 modii.. He answered him: May the words of the Torah be burned and not be delivered to women! After she had left, his students said to him, rabbi, this one you pushed away with a stick, what do you explain to us? ¹²⁰In the Babli, this answer and the following one are attributed to "one of Rav or Levi ben Sissi.” Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Anybody against whom there were witnesses and warning was executed in court¹²¹According to rabbinic theory, nobody can be convicted by biblical standards unless (1) the crime was witnessed by two witnesses of sterling character and (2) criminal intent is proven by two witnesses who testify that the criminal was informed that his intended deed would subject him to prosecution and nevertheless he persisted in his criminal behavior.. Anybody against whom there were witnesses but no warning was checked similar to a suspected wife¹²²One has to assume that this procedure was part of the police powers granted to Moses in his position of king of the Israelites, and that the guilty persons died from the gold water.. Anybody against whom there were neither witnesses nor warning died from a plague. Rav and Levi bar Sissi both say: One who sacrificed, burned, and poured out a libation was executed in court¹²³Since these are acts of Temple worship, as idolatrous practices they are capital crimes (Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:6).. He who clapped his hands, danced, laughed, was checked similar to a suspected wife¹²⁴These are sinful practices if in idolatrous intent but not criminally prosecutable.. If he enjoyed himself silently, he died from a plague¹²⁵Since this sin was known only to God, its punishment was by the Hand of Heaven..

Could one not judge him on Fridays, pass sentence on the Sabbath, and execute him after the Sabbath? If you say so, it turns out that his judgment is delayed⁵⁴This argument really implies that capital crimes be tried only by the Supreme Court whose decrees are final.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, could he not be judged on the Sabbath, have his sentence passed on the Sabbath, and be executed on the Sabbath? Temple service, which supersedes Sabbath prohibitions⁵⁵The Sabbath Temple service, as prescribed in Num. 28:10, requires slaughtering and burning. For any other purpose, these are deadly sins and capital crimes if done on the Sabbath., is pushed aside by obligatory executions, since it is said, from My altar take him to be executed⁵⁶Ex. 21:14. The verse is read, not as a denial of asylum for any murderer, but as a commandment to immediately execute a Cohen even if he was officiating when convicted of murder. (The non-Cohen would commit a deadly sin by touching the altar.). Therefore the Sabbath, which is pushed aside by Temple service, logically should be pushed aside by obligatory executions⁵⁷The argument deserves no refutation since the relation “stronger than” underlying an argument de minore ad majus is not transitive (a stronger than b, b stronger than c does not imply a stronger than c. Babli Šabbat 132b; cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, London 1967, pp. 182–183.) The Babli, 35b, disproves the argument at length.. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This⁵⁸Mishnah 6. implies that courts may not sit on the Sabbath; what is the reason? It is said here, in all your dwellings⁵⁹Ex. 35:3, the prohibition to start a fire on the Sabbath., and it is said there, these shall be for you legal procedures for your generations in all your dwellings⁶⁰Num. 35:29, the law of homicide and murder. The argument (Babli 35b) goes as follows. Some capital crimes are punished by burning. Ex. 35:3, which has been shown to be applicable to court proceedings, forbids executing a convicted criminal who has to be burned. Therefore no capital punishment can be executed on the Sabbath.. Since there the verse refers to courts, so also here the verse refers to courts.

Shemaya and Avatalyon received from them. Shemaya would say: Love work, hate power, and do not become too familiar with the authorities.
Love work.” How so? This teaches us that a person should love work, and not hate work. For just as the Torah was given in a covenant, so work was given in a covenant, as it says (Exodus 20:10), “For six days you shall labor and do all your work, and the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Eternal your God.” Rabbi Akiva would say: Sometimes a person labors and escapes death, and sometimes a person does not labor and becomes liable for death from Heaven. How so? Say a person sat around all week and did no labor, and then on the eve of the Sabbath he had nothing to eat. But he had money that had been designated [to the Temple] in his house. So he took from this and ate, and thus became liable to death from Heaven. However, if he had labored on the building of the Temple, then even though they paid him in money designated for the Temple and he took that money and used it for food, he would still escape the death penalty.
Rabbi Dostai would say: How do we know that if someone did no work all six days, he will end up doing work on the seventh? For, see, if he sat all the days of the week and did no work, and then on the eve of the Sabbath he had nothing to eat, he would then go out looking, and end up seized by conscription officers, who would grab him by the collar and force him to do on the Sabbath all the work that he did not do for six days.
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: Even Adam did not taste anything until he worked, as it says (Genesis 2:15–16), “And God placed him in the garden, to work it and guard it”; and then [it says (verse 17)], “From every tree of the garden you may certainly eat.”
Rabbi Tarfon would say: Even the Holy Blessed One did not rest His presence upon Israel until they had done work, as it says (Exodus 25:5), “Make Me a Sanctuary, and I will dwell among them.”
Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira would say: If someone who has no work to do, what should he do? If he has a dilapidated yard or field, he should go and work on them, as it says (Exodus 20:10), “Six days you shall labor and do all your work.” What do we learn from the phrase, “do all your work”? That even someone who has dilapidated yards or fields should work on them.
Rabbi Yosei HaGalili would say: A person dies only because of idleness, as it says (Genesis 49:33), “And he expired [or: exhausted himself], and so was gathered to his people.”¹It does not say that Jacob “died,” only that he was “gathered to his people.” Rabbi Yosei is reading that as a reward for “exhausting himself,” i.e., not being idle. And see, if someone is pushed and falls over on his own craftwork and dies, we know his death was because of idleness. And if he was standing on the top of the roof, the top of a palace, or the top of any building, or at the edge of the river, and he fell and died, we know his death was because of idleness.
All this we know to be true for men. And how do we know it is also true for women? For it says (Exodus 36:6), “Let no man or woman do any more work for the donations to the Sanctuary.” And how do we know it is true also for children? For it says (there), “So the people stopped bringing.”
Rabbi Natan said: When Moses was carrying out the work of the Tabernacle, he did not want to take direction from the chiefs of Israel. So the chiefs of Israel sat there quietly and said: Perhaps now Moses will need our help. When they heard the announcement in the camp that said enough work had been done, they said: Alas, we have not participated at all in the work of the Tabernacle! So they got up and added a great thing by themselves, as it says (Exodus 35:27), “And the chiefs brought the shoham stones [for the breastplate of the high priest].”