Yevamot 12

לא משבת אתה מתיירא אלא ממי שהזהיר על השבת אף מורא האמורה במקדש לא ממקדש אתה מתיירא אלא ממי שהזהיר על המקדש

one does not reverence the Sabbath but Him who ordered the observance of the Sabbath, so in the case of 'reverence' used in relation to the Sanctuary, one is not to reverence the Sanctuary but Him who gave the commandment concerning the Sanctuary. And what is regarded as the '<i>reverence of the Sanctuary</i>'? — A man shall not enter the Temple mount<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which the Sanctuary stood. ');">¹</span> with his stick, shoes or money bag<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], Lat. funda. Others, 'a hollow girdle in which money is kept'. ');">²</span>

ואי זו היא מורא מקדש לא יכנס אדם בהר הבית במקלו במנעלו בפונדתו ובאבק שעל גבי רגליו ולא יעשנו קפנדריא ורקיקה מק"ו

or with dust upon his feet, nor may he use it for making a short cut;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], cf. compendiaria. ');">³</span> and spitting [is there forbidden] by inference a minori ad majus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bet. 54a. For an explanation of the inference, v. ibid. 62b. ');">⁴</span>

ואין לי אלא בזמן שבהמ"ק קיים בזמן שאין בהמ"ק קיים מנין ת"ל (ויקרא יט, ל) את שבתותי תשמורו ומקדשי תיראו מה שמירה האמורה בשבת לעולם אף מורא האמורה במקדש לעולם

This, however, might apply<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is not (known) to me'. ');">⁵</span> only to the time when the Sanctuary was in existence; whence is it deduced that the same holds good of the time when the Sanctuary no longer exists? It was expressly stated in Scripture, Ye shall keep My Sabbaths, and reverence My Sanctuary;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 30. ');">⁶</span>

אלא סד"א תיתי מהבערה דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (שמות לה, ג) לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם מה ת"ל

as the 'keeping' that was used in relation to the Sabbath holds good forever, so also the 'reverence' used in relation to the Sanctuary must hold good forever.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since there is no superfluous verse to extend the principle in such a case as levirate marriage, the question remains, what need was there for the text ''aleha'. ');">⁷</span> Really [the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 22, n. 7. ');">⁸</span>

מה ת"ל אי לרבי יוסי ללאו אי לר' נתן לחלק

is because] it might have been assumed that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 22, n. 8. ');">⁹</span> should be derived from the prohibition of kindling a fire [on the Sabbath]. For a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: Wherefore was it stated, Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your <i>habitations</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXV, 3. ');">¹⁰</span>

דתניא הבערה ללאו יצתה דברי ר' יוסי רבי נתן אומר לחלק

'Wherefore 'was it stated'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of kindling a fire, surely, is included in the general prohibition of labour on Sabbath. ');">¹¹</span> Surely if one is to follow R. Jose, &nbsp; &nbsp; <font>it was to intimate that [kindling a fire on the Sabbath is] a prohibition only;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only a negative commandment the transgression of which does not, like the other Sabbath offences, involve the penalties of stoning or kareth. The former, if the offender was warned beforehand of the consequence of his offence, the latter, where no such warning had been given. ');">¹²</span></font>

ואמר רבא תנא מושבות קא קשיא ליה מושבות מה ת"ל

and, if one is to follow R. Nathan, it was to intimate that even a single transgression involves one in the prescribed penalties;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to divide', i.e., one of the thirty-nine kinds of labour that are forbidden on the Sabbath was singly specified in order to indicate that to incur the prescribed penalties it is not necessary to commit all the thirty-nine transgressions (as the one general, all-embracing prohibition of about might have seemed to imply). The mention of one prohibition (kindling of fire) separately breaks up, so to speak, (divides), all the others into single units, indicating that, as in its own case, so in that of all the others first mentioned together with it, every single transgression involves the penalty of stoning, kareth, or a sin-offering. ');">¹³</span> for it was taught: 'The prohibition of kindling a fire [on the Sabbath] was mentioned separately<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'went out'. ');">¹⁴</span>

מכדי שבת חובת הגוף היא וחובת הגוף נוהגת בין בארץ בין בח"ל מושבות דכתב רחמנא בשבת למה לי

in order to [indicate that its transgression is] a prohibition only;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 24, n. 12. ');">¹⁵</span> so R. Jose, while R. Nathan maintains that the intention was to intimate that even a single transgression involves the offender in the prescribed penalties'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to divide', i.e., one of the thirty-nine kinds of labour that are forbidden on the Sabbath was singly specified in order to indicate that to incur the prescribed penalties it is not necessary to commit all the thirty-nine transgressions (as the one general, all-embracing prohibition of about might have seemed to imply). The mention of one prohibition (kindling of fire) separately breaks up, so to speak, (divides), all the others into single units, indicating that, as in its own case, so in that of all the others first mentioned together with it, every single transgression involves the penalty of stoning, kareth, or a sin-offering. ');">¹³</span>

משום רבי ישמעאל אמר תלמיד אחד לפי שנאמר (דברים כא, כב) וכי יהיה באיש חטא משפט מות והומת שומע אני בין בחול בין בשבת ומה אני מקיים (שמות לא, יד) מחלליה מות יומת בשאר מלאכות חוץ ממיתת ב"ד או אינו אלא אפילו מיתת ב"ד ומה אני מקיים והומת בחול ולא בשבת

And Raba explained that the Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who asked, supra, 'wherefore was it stated?' ');">¹⁶</span> found difficult the expression of habitations,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXV, 3. ');">¹⁷</span>

או אינו אלא אפילו בשבת ת"ל לא תבערו אש בכל מושבותיכם ולהלן הוא אומר (במדבר לה, כט) והיו אלה לכם לחוקת משפט לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם

[arguing thus]: What need was there for Scripture to state 'habitations'? [Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the prohibition is in force in all 'habitations'. ');">¹⁸</span> obvious?] For consider: The observance of the Sabbath is a personal obligation, and any personal obligation is valid both in the Land [of Israel] and outside the land;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., throughout all habitations. ');">¹⁹</span>

מה מושבות האמורים להלן בב"ד אף מושבות האמורים כאן בב"ד ואמר רחמנא לא תבערו

what need, then, was there for the All Merciful to write it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The phrase, 'throughout your habitations', Ex. XXXV, 3. ');">²⁰</span> in connection with the Sabbath? This was explained by a disciple in the name of R. Ishmael: Whereas it was stated in the Scriptures, <i>And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 22. ');">²¹</span>

מאי לאו רבי נתן היא דאמר לחלק יצתה וטעמא דכתב רחמנא לא תבערו הא לאו הכי דחי

one <font>might infer [that the death penalty may be executed] both on week-days and on the Sabbath</font> and, as regards the application of the text, <i>Everyone that profaneth it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sabbath. ');">²²</span></i> shall surely be put to death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXI, 14 which prohibits all kinds of labour on the Sabbath. ');">²³</span>

לא רבי יוסי ותיהוי נמי ר' יוסי אימר דאמר רבי יוסי הבערה ללאו יצתה הבערה גרידתא

this might be said to refer to the several kinds of labour other than the execution of a judicial death sentence; or again it might be inferred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'or it is not but'. ');">²⁴</span> that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of labour. ');">²⁵</span>

הבערה דב"ד בישול פתילה הוא

refers even to a judicial execution of a death sentence and, as regards the application of <i>He shall surely be put to death</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXI, 14 which prohibits all kinds of labour on the Sabbath. ');">²³</span> [this might be said to refer] to week-days but not to &nbsp; &nbsp; the Sabbath; or again it might be thought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'or it is not but'. ');">²⁶</span>

וא"ר ששת מה לי בישול פתילה מה לי בישול סמנין

to apply also to the Sabbath; hence it was expressly stated, <i>Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXV, 3. ');">²⁷</span> and further on it is stated, <i>And these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your habitations</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 29, referring to the death penalties of murderers. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר רב שימי בר אשי האי תנא לא משום דאתי עשה ודחי ל"ת אלא משום דמייתי מק"ו וה"ק מה אני מקיים מחלליה מות יומת בשאר מלאכות חוץ ממיתת ב"ד אבל מיתת ב"ד דחיא שבת מק"ו

as the expression of '<i>habitations</i>' mentioned below<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 29, referring to the death penalties of murderers. ');">²⁸</span> refers to the <i>Beth din</i>, so the expression '<i>habitations</i>' mentioned here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXV, 3. ');">²⁷</span> refers also to the <i>Beth din</i>, and concerning this the All Merciful said, '<i>Ye shall kindle no fire</i>'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., execute no death penalty of burning on the Sabbath. The death penalty of 'burning' was executed by pouring molten lead through the condemned man's mouth into his body, thus burning his internal organs. ');">²⁹</span> Now, are we not to assume this statement to be in agreement with the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what, (is it) not?' ');">³⁰</span> of R. Nathan who holds that the object was to intimate that even a single transgression involves the offender in the prescribed penalties,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of death or kareth. V. supra p. 25, n. 1. ');">³¹</span> and the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the death penalty of burning — a kind of work — which according to R. Nathan would involve kareth must not be executed on the Sabbath. ');">³²</span> is because the All Merciful has written, <i>Ye shall kindle no fire</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXV, 3. ');">²⁷</span> but had that not been the case it would have superseded the [Sabbath]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the penalties involved include that of kareth. Thus it follows that a positive precept may supersede even such a prohibition. So also in the case of the levirate marriage it might have been assumed that the precept of marrying one's deceased childless brother's widow supersedes the prohibition of marrying a consanguineous relative despite the fact that such a transgression involves elsewhere the penalty of kareth; hence it was necessary for Scripture to add, ''aleha' (Lev. XVIII, 18), to indicate that even a levirate marriage is in such a case forbidden. (V. supra 3b and 5b). ');">³³</span> — No; this may be according to R. Jose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 24, n. 12. ');">³⁴</span> Granted, however, [that it is according to the view of] R. Jose, might it not be suggested that R. Jose said that 'kindling a fire [on the Sabbath] is mentioned separately in order to indicate that it is a mere prohibition' [in the case only of] ordinary burning; the burning by the <i>Beth din</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The death penalty of burning. ');">³⁵</span> [however, is surely a case of] boiling of the metal bar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 4. ');">³⁶</span> concerning which R. Shesheth said that there is no difference between the boiling of a metal bar and the boiling of dyes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what (difference is it) to me', Shab. 106a. The dyes were boiled in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle that was made by Moses, and any kind of labour that was there performed is included among the thirty-nine principal kinds of labour which are forbidden on the Sabbath (v. Shab. 73a) and involve the penalty of kareth. Cf. supra p. 26, n. 8. ');">³⁷</span> — R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: This Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who deduced from Scriptural texts that a judicial death sentence may not be executed on the Sabbath. ');">³⁸</span> [requires Scriptural texts] not because elsewhere he holds that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition, but because this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The assumption that the execution of a judicial death sentence might supersede the Sabbath. ');">³⁹</span> might have been obtained by inference a minori ad majus; and it is this that he meant to say: 'As regards the application of the text, Every one that profaneth it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sabbath. ');">⁴⁰</span> shall surely be put to death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXI, 14. ');">⁴¹</span> it might have been said to apply to the several kinds of labour other than that of the execution of a judicial death sentence, but that a judicial death sentence does supersede the Sabbath, by inference a minori ad majus: