שמות לה:ג - לא תבערו אש בכל מושבתיכם ביום השבת.
Shemot 35:3 records “you shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat” (Hertz, 1960, p. 373). The interpretation of this verse has been quite contentious. What does it mean, "you shall kindle no fire?" Does it mean not to start a fire on Shabbat or not to have a fire burning on Shabbat?
The traditional Jewish interpretation of Shemot 35:3 is that the verse only prohibits lighting a fire on Shabbat, but a fire that was lit before Shabbat can remain burning on Shabbat. This position is recorded in the Mekhilta (quoted in Torah Shelemah 35:29) on the verse, which states that one cannot kindle a fire on Shabbat but one can kindle a fire on erev Shabbat that will burn on Shabbat. Menachem Kasher (Torah Shelemah, additions to Va-Yakhel, 3) notes that this interpretation contradicted the Samaritan (Jewish sect from at least the time of the second Temple) explanation of the verse that 35:3 prohibits all fires on Shabbat even if they were lit before Shabbat, and required one to extinguish all fires before Shabbat. Lauterbach (1973, p. 123 footnote 32a) writes that this view was also that of the Sadducees (sect from around 200 BCE to the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, 70 CE.). Thus at the time of the second Bet ha-Mikdash, there was a controversy whether fire was permitted on Shabbat if it was lit before Shabbat. The Pharisees (forerunners of traditional Judaism) argued yes, while the Samaritans and Sadducees said no.
The argument concerning Shemot 35:3 was renewed in the ninth century with the development of Karaites, who accepted the Samaritan and Sadducees understanding of 35:3. The most prominent defender of the traditional understanding of 35:3 was Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (882-942) who wrote an excurses explaining why 35:3 only prohibits lighting a fire on Shabbat, but not benefiting from a fire that was lit before Shabbat. (The excurses was printed in English and Arabic by Hirschfeld (1906), and reprinted in Hebrew, by Kapach (1984) and Kasher, above.) In response, the Karaite biblical scholar, Yefet ben Ali ha-Levi (Arabic name, Abu Ali al-Hassan ibn Ali, b. Basra, d. Jerusalem, 10th century, quoted in Hirschfeld, above) attempted to refute all of Saadiah Gaon's proofs.
In the 12th century, Ibn Ezra (1089-1164, Spain) in his long comments on 35:3 refers to Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon's book against the Karaites, and in his short comments on 35:3 he records a lengthy argument he had with a Karaite concerning 35:3. Ibn Ezra writes that he told the Karaite that he would interpret the verse just based on what is written in the Torah and that the Karaite was happy with this offer. Ibn Ezra then asked the Karaite if it was permitted to light a fire on Friday night, and the Karaite said it was forbidden based on 35:3. Ibn Ezra rejected this response since the Torah uses the word day, and then the prohibition of lighting a fire should only be during the daylight hours and not at night. The Karaite then attempted to prove that the word day in 35:3 also referred to nighttime, but Ibn Ezra showed that the word day could refer to both day and night or to a specific time period. Ibn Ezra concluded that he recorded this argument since some verses can be understood in various ways, but we rely on tradition as to what is the correct interpretation.
This disagreement concerning 35:3 continues with modern translators of the Torah. Fox (1995, p. 463) in his translations of the Torah translates 35:3 as “you are not to let fire burn throughout all your settlements on the Sabbath day.” This is the Samaritan, Sadducees and Karaite position, as he understands 35:3 to mean that one must not allow a fire to burn. On the other hand, Alter (2004, p. 514) translates the verse as "you shall not kindle a fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day." In his commentary, Alter writes, "the kindling of fire – as against merely making use of fire that had been set accidentally- is clearly a primary labor of civilization," which shows that he understand the verse as prohibiting the kindling of fire as opposed to using fire on Shabbat.
What is the basis for the disagreement concerning 35:3? The answer is that there is an ambiguity in the literal translation of 35:3. In Hebrew, the word tebaaru, means literally to burn, and thus 35:3 literally records one is not to burn a fire on Shabbat. Yet, what does it mean, “not to burn a fire? As noted by Propp (2006, p. 659) the verse "could be rendered either 'do not kindle' or 'do no permit to burn." This ambiguity can be seen in Ibn Ezra’s (short comments on 35:3) comments on the verse discussed above. He does not offer proof for the rabbinic position, but argued that the Karaites were inconsistent in their interpretation. Thus, in the end he resorts to relying on tradition.
Accordingly because of the ambiguity of 35:3, the arguments surrounding the interpretation of the verse have centered on other verses in Tanakh that are claimed to support one reading or the other. For example, one argument from Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (above) is that Shemot 23:12 and Devarim 5:14 only require people and animals to rest. If a person has to extinguish a fire before Shabbat, then this means that one is required to make fire rest, yet what can it mean to require an inanimate object such as fire to rest? Yefet (above) countered that the obligation to rest is only one reason not to work on Shabbat, and also Bereshit 8:4 uses the word to rest by an inanimate object, the ark. Tobias ben Eliezer, (Rabbanite leader of Byzantine Jewry, end of 11th century, Midrash Lekah Tov, quoted in Torah Shelemah 35:30) who also battled with the Karaites, notes that a person can plant seeds during on Friday even though the seeds will take root on Shabbat and one can open an irrigation system on Friday that lets the field gets watered on Shabbat. Thus, he queries, why should using a fire that was lit on Shabbat be forbidden? Furthermore, he argues that if the Torah really meant to prohibit all fires on Shabbat, then the Torah should have written this prohibition explicitly as is recorded by the prohibition of hametz. In the 15th century, the Karaite scholar, Elijah Bashyachi (1430-1490, Istanbul, quoted in Frank, 2001, p. 263) accepted the traditional interpretation of 35:3 and argued:
A lamp burned eternally in the Temple on account of its sanctity; it is fitting, therefore, that all Jewish homes have lamps, in honor of the holy books they contain. Can any intelligent person really believe that Moses out teacher or the other prophets and princes used to sit in darkness on Sabbath evenings? No, to a sensible person this is inconceivable!
For a discussion of how this argument influenced several laws/ customs and Jewish history, see Schein, 2008 and our discussion "Lighting candles before Shabbat and Yom Tov."
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.
Frank, Daniel, 2001, Karaite Ritual, in Judaism in practice: From the Middle Ages through the early Modern period, edited by Lawrence Fine, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 248-264.
Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.
Hirschfeld, Hartwig, 1906, The Arabic portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge, Jewish Quarterly Review, 18:4, pp. 600-620.
Kapach, Yosef (1917-2000), 1984, Commentary of Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon on the Torah, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
Lauterbach, Jacob (1873-1942), 1973, Rabbinic Essays, New York: Ktav. Reprint of 1951 edition, Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College.
Propp, William, 2006, Exodus 19-40: A new translation with introduction and commentary, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schein, Andrew, 2008, Can’t start a fire without a spark, in Edut BeYhosef: Essays presented to Rabbi Dr. Yosef Green on the occasion of his eightieth birthday, edited by Dov and Esther Green, Jerusalem
No comments:
Post a Comment