In this week’s parshah, the Torah writes about the mekoshesh eitzim – the individual who desecrated Shabbos in the midbar by gathering wood. The Torah says that since the halacha concerning one who is mechallel Shabbos was uncertain, the mekoshesh was placed in confinement until Hashem relayed what was to be done to him. Hashem subsequently told Moshe Rabbeinu that the man should be put to death by stoning; and so he was.
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 78b) says that it was actually clear that one who desecrates Shabbos deserves to die since the Torah states earlier: “mechallelehah mos yumas” (Shemos 31:14). The only uncertainty was which form of death he should receive.
Tosafos (Sanhedrin ibid.) asks why Moshe was uncertain what form of death the mekoshesh deserved. The general rule is that unless otherwise specified, the penalty of death in the Torah is carried out by chenek (strangulation).
Tosafos answers that Moshe reasoned that one who desecrates Shabbos in public is like one who serves avodah zarah since by desecrating Shabbos in public one denies that Hashem created the world (Chullin 5a). Therefore, Moshe thought that perhaps the punishment for desecrating Shabbos in public should be stoning, as is the case for one who serves avodah zarah. Hashem answered that one who desecrates Shabbos indeed deserves to be stoned.
If that is the case, though – if a mechallel Shabbos is toned because he is like one who is ovdei avodah zarah – why, Rav Akiva Eiger asks, is a person who desecrates Shabbos in private stoned? This person has not effectively denied that Hashem created the world and therefore is not like one who served avodah zarah. Therefore, he should receive chenek, not sekilah.
Rav Elchanan Wasserman, Hy”d (Kovetz Shiurim Baba Basra 356), says that it appears that Tosafos on Baba Basra 119 (d”h “shenemar”) understood that the mekoshesh acted in private. If so, apparently Moshe thought that even someone who is mechallel Shabbos in private can be compared to one who serves avodah zarah. Why? Because, as Rashi explains (to Chullin 5a) one who is mechallel Shabbos is effectively testifying that Hashem did not create the world in six days and rest on the seventh. He is like someone who serves avodah zarah.
The only difference between desecrating Shabbos in public and private is that the one who is mechallel Shabbos in public has publicly declared his testimony while one who is mechallel Shabbos in private has declared his testimony to fewer than 10 individuals. Furthermore, someone who is mechallel Shabbos in public becomes a mumar for the whole Torah.
A proof that even one who is mechallel Shabbos in private is like one who serves avodah zarah can be found in Yevamos (6a), which states that the lav of Shabbos is more stringent and perhaps cannot be nidche by an assei. Rashi explains that the reason that the lav of Shabbos is more stringent is because it is comparable to avodah zarah. This Gemara is not only referring to one who desecrates Shabbos in public, but in private as well.
Thus, Moshe Rabbeinu entertained the possibility that one who is michallel Shabbos should deserve the same punishment as one who does avodah zarah – whether the sin was public or private. And Hashem’s reply – that stoning is the penalty of a michallel Shabbos applies to both as well.