2

Shabbos 70a records a dispute between R' Nassan and R' Yosi on how to interpret the seemingly extra passuk (Shemos 35:3):

לֹא־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת׃

Do not light a fire in all of your dwellings on the day of the Shabbos.

According to R' Nassan, it's to indicate that if one violates several categories of Melacha, he's liable for each one of them, just as we see by lighting a fire that one is liable for it alone.

R' Yosi, on the other hand, learns the passuk differently:

תניא הבערה ללאו יצאת דברי רבי יוסי

It was taught in a Braisa: Lighting a fire was singled out as a prohibition - the words of R' Yosi.

What does this mean? As Rashi explains:

שאין חייבין עליה כרת וסקילה כשאר מלאכות אלא מה שאמור בה

That one is not liable over it Kareis and stoning like the other Melachos, but rather what is said by it.

So, lighting a fire is singled out in order to indicate that it's unique in its punishment. But lighting a fire isn't the only one that's singled out. Consider Shemos 34:21:

בֶּחָרִ֥ישׁ וּבַקָּצִ֖יר תִּשְׁבֹּֽת

In your plowing and in your harvesting you shall rest.

This is expounded in Rosh HaShanah 9a to refer either not to days but to years and comes to prohibit plowing before Shemitah in preparation of Shemitah and harvesting Shemitah produce after Shemitah, or to indicate that just as one is not obligated to plow, so, too, the liability is only when he is not obligated to harvest, thus permitting cutting the grain for the Omer and Shtei HaLechem.

Is there anyone who expounds the latter passuk regarding harvesting and plowing in the same vein as R' Yosi by lighting a fire? If not, why?

(I don't ask according to R' Nassan's interpretation of the passuk of lighting a fire, as he indeed incorporates the passuk of harvesting and plowing into his interpretation of that of lighting a fire.)

  • 1
    Obvious difference: בחריש ובקציר תשבות is phrased in the positive, so it would generate a לאו הבא מכלל עשה, hence no kareis or skilah. – Meir Mar 1 at 18:13
  • @Meir All the more reason to make this exposition – DonielF Mar 1 at 18:13
  • 2
    Not really. You have a klal, לא תעשה כל מלאכה, and something that was part of the klal and then is singled out, לא תבערו אש, so the prat can be seen as ללמד על עצמו or ללמד על הכלל (which is basically what ללאו יצאת or לחלק יצאת is all about). But that's because both of them are lavin. An aseh would, at best, connect with the general aseh of Shabbos, וביום השביעי תשבות, such that you could say that someone who plows or plants on Shabbos is violating two asehs, but not that it would be an exception to the general lav. – Meir Mar 1 at 18:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .