Yevamot

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 'reverence of the Sanctuary'? — A man shall not enter the Temple mount  with his stick, shoes or money bag  or with dust upon his feet, nor may he use it for making a short cut;  and spitting [is there forbidden] by inference a minori ad majus.  This, however, might apply  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;  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. Really [the reason  is because] it might have been assumed that this  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 habitations?  'Wherefore 'was it stated'!  Surely if one is to follow R. Jose, 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 Beth din,  [however, is surely a case of] boiling of the metal bar  concerning which R. Shesheth said that there is no difference between the boiling of a metal bar and the boiling of dyes?  — R. Shimi b. Ashi replied: This Tanna  [requires Scriptural texts] not because elsewhere he holds that a positive precept supersedes a prohibition, but because this  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  shall surely be put to death,  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: