— Because the Torah prohibited [on the Sabbath] purposed work, yet purposed work is not mentioned in Scripture. [LAWS CONCERNING] FESTAL-OFFERINGS. But they are written [in Scripture]! — No, it is necessary in the light of what R. Papa said to Abaye: Whence [do we know] that [the verse]: And ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord signifies sacrifice? Perhaps the Divine Law means: Celebrate a Festival! — If so, when it is written, That they may hold a feast unto Me in the wilderness, would that also mean: Celebrate a festival! And should you say that it indeed means that, surely it is written: And Moses said: ‘Thou must also give into our hand beasts of killing and burnt-offerings’! — Perhaps the Divine Law means this: Eat ye and drink and celebrate a festival before Me! — Do not think of this; for it is written: Neither shall the fat of My feast remain all night until the morning. If now you suppose that it means a festival [only], has a festival fat? — But perhaps the Divine Law means this: the fat that is offered during the course of the festival should not remain overnight! — If so, then [it would imply] that only during the festival the fat may not remain overnight, but throughout the year it may remain overnight; [but behold] it is written: All night unto the morning! — [But] perhaps from this [verse alone] one would know it merely as a positive precept, therefore Scripture wrote the other [verse to enjoin it] as a prohibition! — [To enjoin it] as a prohibition there is another verse: Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning — [But] perhaps [this was required] in order to impose upon him two prohibitions and one positive precept! — Rather, it can be deduced from [the word] ‘wilderness’ which occurs in two passages. Here it is written: That they may hold a feast unto Me in the wilderness. And elsewhere it is written: Did ye bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness? Just as in the latter verse [it means] sacrifices, so in the former [it means] sacrifices. Why then does it say: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR? — [Because] no inference may be drawn concerning statements of the Torah from statements of the Prophets. ACTS OF SACRILEGE. But they are written [in Scripture]! Rami b. Hama said: It is required only for that which we have learnt. If the agent did his errand [committing thereby an act of sacrilege], the householder is guilty of sacrilege; if he did not do his errand, the agent is guilty of sacrilege. But why should he be guilty if he did his errand? Shall one man sin and another become liable! That is why [the Mishnah says]: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR. Raba said: But what is the objection? Perhaps sacrilege is different, since we compare it with terumah through the analogous expressions for ‘sin’ [which occur in connection with both laws]: just as there the agent of a person is like himself , so here the agent of a person is like himself. Rather, said Raba, it must be required for the [following] teaching; If the householder remembered, but the agent did not remember, the agent is guilty of sacrilege. What has the poor agent done! That is why [the Mishnah says]: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR. R. Ashi said: What is the objection? Perhaps it is like [every other] case where one spent [in error] sacred money for secular purposes! Rather, said R. Ashi, it must be required for that which we have learnt. If a man took away a stone or a beam from Temple property, he is not guilty of sacrilege; but if he gave it to his fellow, he himself is guilty, but his fellow is not guilty. See now, he has taken it, what difference does it make whether he or his fellow [keeps it]! Therefore it says: LIKE MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR. But what is the objection? Perhaps it is [to be explained] according to Samuel. For Samuel said: Hereᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍ