Or HaChaim on Exodus 31:14/אור החיים על שמות ל״א:י״ד

1 ושמרתם את השבת,"And you shall observe the Sabbath, etc." Why did G'd repeat the need to observe the Sabbath by adding a new rationale, namely that it was holy? Seeing that immediately before this verse the Torah had permitted violation of the Sabbath laws for the sake of sick people, we might have concluded that the holiness of the Sabbath is relative, i.e. that when compared to a sick person the Sabbath is merely secular. As a result people would violate the Sabbath to prepare medications, etc., even when the life of the patient was not in danger. The Torah therefore underlined the holiness of the Sabbath to warn us not to violate its statutes unless there was danger to a patient's life.

2We can also understand this verse when considering something we learned in Menachot 64. The Talmud discusses a situation in which doctors estimated that the patient urgently needed figs [which had not yet been plucked off the tree; sometimes one stalk supports more than one fig, sometimes not. Ed.]. The question is raised that if two figs can be found each of which grows on a separate stalk, necessitating two separate pluckings, or there is a single stalk on which three figs grow, which is to be plucked? The Talmud answers that it is obvious that it is better to pluck the three figs which require only a single act of plucking, i.e. a single violation of the Sabbath. [I have quoted the Talmud correctly; the author, or at least the version I have at my disposal, quoted the Talmud incorrectly. Ed.] The author quotes a hypothetical situation where the patient needed to eat two figs in order to recover. There could be found either a) two figs growing on one stalk or b) 3 figs growing on one stalk. Would it be permissible to pluck the three figs seeing that they too grow on a single stalk and only a single violation of the Sabbath takes place? The answer the author gives is that one must pluck the two figs rather than the three. Although from the point of view of the prohibited work to be performed there is no difference if one plucks the stalk supporting three figs or the one supporting only two figs, the effect of the action is different. The Torah demands that "you shall observe the Sabbath," and this means that any work not necessary for the patient in question must not be undertaken, כי קדש היא, because of the sacred nature of the Sabbath. The Torah made the decision dependent on the nature of the Sabbath and not on the nature of the work performed. If one were to cut off more figs than needed this would be a desecration of the holiness of the Sabbath. The lesson from our verse is that the Sabbath does not lose its holiness even when it is being violated for the sake of a person whose life may be in danger unless we violated the Sabbath on his account.

3מחלליה מות יומת. "those who desecrate it shall be executed." It is peculiar that the Torah first speaks about people who desecrate the Sabbath in the plural whereas it speaks of the penalty to be applied to a single violator. We may understand this in light of what we have just explained. There may be a person who was permitted to violate the Sabbath by plucking a stalk on which two figs grew which were needed by the sick person. This person plucked the stalk on which three figs grew, instead. A second person also plucked figs but not for a sick person. Both these people violated the Sabbath. Only one of the two is subject to the death penalty. The person who cut three figs for the patient instead of two is not guilty of the death penalty seeing that the basic act he engaged in when plucking the figs was not prohibited at that time for that purpose. In order to be liable for the death penalty the basic act must have been prohibited at that time.

4The plain meaning of the words is that the expression מחלליה plural, refers to people violating the Sabbath intentionally. Most people do not do this if warned of the penalty that follows. Therefore, concerning the individual, i.e. the exception who insists on going through with the violation after having been warned of the consequences, the Torah says that he is to be executed. A person who has deliberately violated the Sabbath and has not been warned is liable to the Karet penalty, i.e. he will die prematurely by Divine decree.

5We may also attempt to understand the peculiar wording of our verse in light of Shabbat 106. The subject is the definition of the forbidden activity "hunting." The Talmud describes that a deer had entered a private domain, i.e. the courtyard of a Jew on the Sabbath. The entrance to the courtyard was wide enough to accomodate two people, so that if one sat in the entrance the deer could theoretically still escape by running past that individual. Once two people took up position in the entrance, the deer could no longer escape. The Talmud describes that the two people took up position in the entrance one after the other. In such a situation only the second person is considered as having violated the law against hunting. The word מחלליה plural, in our verse refers to desecrations of the Sabbath which necessitated the participation of more than one person. Inasmuch as only the last person's action completed the act of the violation, only that person is subject to the death penalty, i.e. מות יומת in the singular.

6Our verse makes sense also in a different context, such as the one described in Beytzah 34. There several people combine to perform the forbidden work of cooking. One supplies the kindling, the other the flame, the third places the pot in position over the kindling, the fourth supplies the water. The Talmud concludes that if the person who supplies the flame was the last one, he alone is guilty of the violation whereas the others are all not liable to any penalty. When the Torah writes מחלליה, plural, as opposed to מות יומת singular, it may refer to a situation such as outlined in Beytzah.

7מות יומת. "he will be executed." I have already explained in Exodus 21,12 why the Torah repeated the word, i.e. that while the person in question is guilty vis-a-vis Heaven, G'd has given the terrestrial tribunal authority to execute this person who had forfeited his life. This is in contrast with another type of person who has also forfeited his life where G'd did not delegate a human tribunal to carry out this judgment. By mentioning such an example in the very next verse, i.e. כל העושה בה מלאכה ונכרתה, it is clear why the word מות is repeated in our verse.

8כי כל העושה בה מלאכה, "for whosoever performs any work on it, etc." The Torah underlines here that anyone desecrating the Sabbath when there are no witnesses should not jump to the conclusion that he will escape the death penalty and that he would not be considered any more culpable than someone who violates the positive and negative commandment of the sanctity of the Sabbath. The Torah says that this is not so, but that such a person will face the death penalty at the hands of G'd even if he had not been warned and his deed had not been witnessed here on earth. The clause of מות ימות in the singular which we described as a restrictive clause is applicable only to people who desecrate the Sabbath in public and after having been warned not to do so on pain of death by stoning. However, when a person commits a desecration such as we described when he cut off an extra fig which grew on the same stalk as the ones he was required to cut off, the death penalty does not apply to him even if he had been warned by competent witnesses not to do so. Seeing that the words העושה בה מלאכה suggest that there would not be any exception to the death penalty if the violation is performed knowingly, the Torah adds the word כי to alert us to the fact that such violations as cutting the extra fig by default, (without an additional action by the person cutting it) do not carry the karet penalty.