Sanhedrin 35b

וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת, יָכוֹל יִטַּמֵּא? אָמַרְתָּ: ״לֹא יִטַּמֵּא״.

and he heard that a relative of his died, one might have thought that he should return and become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse to bury his relative. You said: “He shall not make himself impure”; the death of his relative will not override so significant a mitzva from the Torah.

יָכוֹל, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לַאֲחוֹתוֹ כָּךְ אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּלְאַחֹתוֹ״. לַאֲחוֹתוֹ הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

One might have thought: Just as he may not become impure to bury his sister, so he may not become impure to bury a met mitzva . Therefore, the verse states specifically: “Or for his sister”; teaching that he may not become impure only to bury his sister, as others can attend to her burial, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva .

שַׁבָּת שֶׁנִּידְחֵת מִפְּנֵי עֲבוֹדָה, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא קְבוּרַת מֵת מִצְוָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ?

Having cited the baraita proving that the burial of a met mitzva overrides the Temple service, Reish Lakish continues his suggestion: With regard to Shabbat, which is overridden due to the Temple service, is it not logical that the burial of a met mitzva overrides it?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רְצִיחָה תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁדּוֹחָה אֶת הָעֲבוֹדָה וְאֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The halakha of murder, i.e., the obligation to kill one found liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, proves that this is not the case, as it overrides the Temple service, e.g., if the only priest present is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, he is taken to be killed despite this resulting in the negation of the Temple service, but it does not override Shabbat.

רְצִיחָה גּוּפָהּ תִּדְחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: מָה עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת״; שַׁבָּת שֶׁנִּידְחֵת מִפְּנֵי עֲבוֹדָה, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ?

The Gemara asks: Murder itself should override Shabbat based on this a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, nevertheless murder overrides it, and the source for this is as it is stated: “And if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; you shall take him from My altar, that he may die” (Exodus 21:14); then with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden due to the Temple service, is it not logical that murder should override it?

אָמַר רָבָא: כְּבָר פַּסְקַהּ תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?

Rava said in response: It has already been ruled by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: What is the meaning when the verse states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day” (Exodus 35:3)? All labor is forbidden on Shabbat, based on the verse: “In it you shall not do any manner of work” (Exodus 20:10). Why is kindling fire singled out?

מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? אִי לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – לְלָאו יָצָאת, אִי לְרַבִּי נָתָן – לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת. כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת.

The Gemara interjects: What is the meaning when the verse states this? If this question is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, this transgression was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat violates an ordinary prohibition, as opposed to the performance of other types of labor on Shabbat, for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. If this question is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, this transgression was singled out to divide the various labors and to establish liability to receive court-imposed capital punishment for performance of any one of them. The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita : Kindling of fire was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat violates an ordinary prohibition, this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Natan says: It was singled out to divide the various labors. Either way, it is clear what the meaning of the verse is.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: תְּנָא ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ. ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? מִכְּדֵי שַׁבָּת חוֹבַת הַגּוּף הִיא, וְחוֹבַת הַגּוּף נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּץ לָאָרֶץ. ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara clarifies: Rather, Rava said: The term “habitations” in the verse poses a difficulty for the tanna : What is the meaning when the verse states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day”? After all, Shabbat is an obligation on the person himself, not an obligation bound to any specific location. And the halakha is that an obligation on the person himself is practiced whether in Eretz Yisrael or outside of Eretz Yisrael. Why do I need the term “habitations” that the Merciful One writes in the Torah?

מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר תַּלְמִיד אֶחָד: לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כִּי יִהְיֶה בְאִישׁ חֵטְא מִשְׁפַּט מָוֶת וְהוּמָת״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי בֵּין בַּחוֹל בֵּין בַּשַּׁבָּת. וְהָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״מְחַלְּלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת״? בִּשְׁאָר מְלָאכוֹת, חוּץ מִמִּיתַת בֵּית דִּין. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין? וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְהוּמָת״? בְּחוֹל אֲבָל לֹא בְּשַׁבָּת. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ בַּשַּׁבָּת?

Rava continues: One student said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that since it is stated: “And if there is in a man a sin deserving of death and he is put to death” (Deuteronomy 21:22), I would derive that the court administers capital punishment both during the week and on Shabbat. And accordingly, how do I realize the meaning of what the verse states concerning Shabbat: “Everyone that desecrates it shall be put to death” (Exodus 31:14)? One possibility is that the term: Desecration of Shabbat, applies only to other cases in which labor is performed, and excludes instances of the death penalty administered by a court, which is not a desecration of Shabbat. Or rather, derive that even the death penalty administered by a court is prohibited as desecration of Shabbat. And how do I realize the meaning of: “And he is put to death”? One possibility is that the mitzva of executing transgressors applies on weekdays, but not on Shabbat. Or rather, the other possibility is that it applies even on Shabbat.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ בְּכֹל מֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהָיוּ אֵלֶּה לָכֶם לְחֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״. מָה ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן – בֵּית דִּין, אַף ״מוֹשָׁבוֹת״ הָאָמוּר כָּאן – בֵּית דִּין. וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא תְבַעֲרוּ אֵשׁ בְּכֹל מֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״.

As these verses can be interpreted in either manner, the verse states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day,” and there, with regard to the punishment administered to a murderer, the verse states: “And these shall be for you a statute of judgment throughout your generations in all your habitations” (Numbers 35:29). Just as the term “habitations” that is stated there is referring to the act of a court, so too the term “habitations” that is stated here concerning Shabbat is referring to the act of a court. And the Merciful One states: “You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations.” This teaches that the court does not administer capital punishment on Shabbat.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ אֵין רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, אֵין רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אֶת הָעֲבוֹדָה מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. וּמָה שַׁבָּת שֶׁנִּידְחֵית מִפְּנֵי הָעֲבוֹדָה – אֵין רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ, עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה אוֹתָהּ?

Abaye says: Now that you have said that murder of one condemned by the court does not override Shabbat, one should say that murder does not override the performance of the Temple service either, based on an a fortiori inference: And just as with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden for the performance of the Temple service, murder does not override it, then with regard to performance of the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that murder should not override it?

אֶלָּא, הָא דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת״? הָהוּא לְקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, דְּלָא דָּחֵי שַׁבָּת.

The Gemara questions this inference: But if so, how would one explain that which is written in the verse concerning one liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment: “You shall take him from My altar, that he may die” (Exodus 21:14)? This verse indicates that the court administering capital punishment does override the performance of the Temple service. The Gemara explains: That verse serves to teach the halakha concerning an offering of an individual, which does not override Shabbat. The verse is teaching that the court takes the priest to execute him even if this will result in the offering of an individual not being sacrificed.

אָמַר רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, לָא תְּהֵא רְצִיחָה דּוֹחָה קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר:

Rava says: If that is so, one should say that murder should not override even an offering of an individual based on an a fortiori inference: