What’s the Torah source for our Mishna TB Shabbat 70

The first Mishnah of chapter 7 back on TB Shabbat 67b delineates three different cases when a person violates the prohibition Shabbat, but would have to bring a different number of sin offerings (חטאת). The first case is when a person forgot about the very concept of Shabbat and violated many Sabbaths. He would only have to bring one sin offering to cover all those Sabbaths. The second case is when a person knows about Shabbat, but forgot that today is Shabbat. He would have to bring a sin offering for every Shabbat he violated. The third case is when a person knows that today is Shabbat, but didn’t know that a specific labor or melakhah (מלאכה) is prohibited. He would have to bring a sin offering for every melakhah he did.

Today’s daf TB Shabbat 70 wants to know what is the Torah source underpinning the third case where person would have to bring a sin offering for each melakhah? The Gemara presents three different opinions what the source is. I have shared with you Rabbi Yossi’s entire explication; however, I have highlighted in red only that part that is relevant to today’s discussion.

“Shmuel said that the verse says: “And you shall observe the Shabbat, for it is holy to you; he who desecrates it shall surely die [mot yumat]” (Exodus 31:14). We learn from the double language, mot yumat, that the Torah amplified multiple deaths for a single desecration. Although several violations were committed in the course of a single lapse of awareness, each is considered a separate offense with regard to punishment. The Gemara asks: That verse was written with regard to intentional transgression. The Gemara is seeking a source for multiple sacrifices brought for unwitting transgression. The Gemara answers: If it does not refer to the matter of intentional transgression, as the verse does not teach a halakha applicable to intentional acts, as it was already written: “Six days you shall perform work, and on the seventh day it shall be holy to you, a Shabbat of rest to God; all who desecrate it shall die” (Exodus 35:2), refer it to the matter of unwitting transgression. The verse teaches that that which was written with regard to the death penalty for desecration of Shabbat in general applies to all halakhot of Shabbat, including cases of unwitting transgression. And what, then, is the meaning of the term: Shall die, in the verse? Does it mean that one who commits an unwitting transgression is punishable by death? It means that he shall die by payment of money. Death is used in the sense of punishment; he will be forced to pay for numerous sacrifices to atone for his sins. (In modern parlance when a person gets a large bill and complaints he might say “You’re killing me!” GG)

“Rabbi Natan says that it is written: “You shall not kindle fire in all your dwellings on the day of Shabbat” (Exodus 35:3). Why does the verse state this halakha? The prohibition against kindling is included in the general prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat. Rather, it should be understood as follows. Since it is already stated: “And Moses gathered the entire assembly of the children of Israel and said to them: These are the things [eleh hadevarim] that God has commanded to perform them. Six days you shall perform work, and on the seventh day it shall be holy to you, a Shabbat of rest to God” (Exodus 35:1–2), and Rabbi Natan derives as follows: “These are the things,” which refers to the halakhot of Shabbat, there are emphases in this phrase that are superfluous in the context of the verse. The Torah could have simply stated: This is a thing [davar]. When it states: Things [devarim] in the plural, it teaches at least two points. The addition of the definite article: The things [hadevarim], adds at least a third point. The numerological value of letters of the word eleh: Alef, one; lamed, thirty; and heh, five, is thirty-six. The total numerical value, three plus thirty-six, derived from the phrase: “These are the things.” This alludes to the thirty-nine prohibited labors that were stated to Moses at Sinai.

“Rabbi Yosei derives it. As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says, it is stated: “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A soul that sins in error, from all the commandments of God that may not be performed, and performs from one of them [me’aḥat me’hena]” (Leviticus 4:2). Rabbi Yosei interprets the verse that at times one is liable to bring one sin-offering for all of his transgressions, and at times one is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every transgression. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? He interprets the unique phrase employed in that verse: From one of these. The Torah could have merely stated: One [aḥat]. Instead, it stated: From one [me’aḥat]. It could have merely stated: Them [hena]. Instead, it stated: Of them [me’hena]. Rabbi Yosei derives that there are cases of one transgression that, with regard to punishment, are them, i.e., many. And there are cases of them, several transgressions, that, with regard to punishment, are one. Furthermore: The term one refers to a full-fledged transgression of Shabbat, e.g., one who intended to and wrote a complete name, Shimon. The term from one refers to a case where he performed only part of the transgression, e.g., one who wrote only shem, part of the word, the letters shin and mem, from Shimon. Them refers to one who performed the primary categories of labor. Of them refers to one who performed subcategories of prohibited labors. One that is them refers to one transgression with multiple punishments, as in a case where his action was intentional with regard to Shabbat in that he was aware that it was Shabbat, and his action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labors in that he was unaware that the labors were prohibited. In that case, he is liable for each primary category of labor. Them that are one refers to several transgressions with one punishment, as in a case where his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat in that he was unaware that it was Shabbat, and his action was intentional with regard to the prohibited labors in that he was aware that the labors were prohibited. In that case, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering.” (Sefaria.org translation)

If you accept the position that the earlier the source is the more authoritative it is, then tannaitic sources/opinions expressed during the mishnaic period (10 CE- 200 CE) are more authoritative than those sources /opinions offered in the amoraic period (after 200 CE -500 CE). Tosefot raises the question how could Shmuel, an amora, not accept one of the two possibilities offered up by Rabbi Natan or Rabbi Yosei who are tannaim!  I found two answers. Tosefot says Shmuel’s source came from an earlier tradition he received and trespassed on. Rabbi Samuel ben Joseph Strashun (1794 – March 21, 1872) explained that since Shmuel’s explanation had absolutely no impact on halakha, actual practice, Shmuel believed he could disagree with those two tannaim.