Language Studies

Aramaic Thoughts

Aramaic Literature - Part 1 - The Talmud on the Sabbath

The list of restrictions imposed regarding Sabbath observance is extensive, as indicated in last week’s column. One set of instructions may be used for illustrative purposes.

“There are two acts of transferring objects (from one domain to another), and these are enlarged to four as affecting the inside (of the premises) and four as affecting the outside. How is this? The beggar, for example, stands outside and the householder inside, and the beggar stretches forth his hand into the interior and places something in the householder’s hand or takes it from his hand and draws it outside. In that event the beggar is guilty (of an infraction of the Sabbath law) and the householder is free of guilt. If the householder stretched forth his hand and put something into the beggar’s hand or drew from it and brought it into the house, then the householder is guilty and the beggar is free of guilt.” (Cited from Everyman’s Talmud, p. 155.)

Such a listing of regulations is frustrating for someone who was not raised in rabbinic Judaism, or who is only minimally familiar with the Talmud. The frustration is due to the fact that the underlying rationale regarding the analysis of the situation is not given. The outside reader (that is, the reader who reads from outside the rabbinic tradition) has difficulty seeing why the beggar reaching into the house and receiving something is a violation of the Sabbath for him, but the householder has transgressed the Sabbath. As Cohen comments, “It will be gathered from this specimen how complicated the question became under the treatment of the Rabbis” (p. 155).

Another way of putting the question is this. The reader assumes that for the beggar to reach into the house, and to take or receive something, constitutes “work” on the part of the beggar. Likewise, for the householder to reach outside to the beggar and give something to him constitutes work on the part of the householder, but not on the part of the beggar. However, the matter of work does not really seem to be the issue, because the ensuing discussion focuses on two things, first the matter of crossing boundaries (in this case the walls of the house) and second, with the matter of removing something from its place. Again, however, the outside reader has to ask why moving a thing from its place constitutes a violation of the Sabbath, or why moving something across boundaries constitutes a violation of the Sabbath.

The issue seems to me to be further confused by the continuation of the discussion, in which the following is said: “If the mendicant extends his hand into the house and the master takes something out of it, or puts something into it which is drawn to the outside by the mendicant, they are both free. If the master of the house extends his hand outside and the mendicant takes something out of it, or puts something into it which is drawn to the inside by the master, they are both free.” (Cited from http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t01/t0109.htm#fr_12). It seems from this that the mendicant (the beggar) and the householder (the master) can avoid the violation if the beggar reaching in does not take from the master’s hand, or the master reaching out does not put the thing in the beggar’s hand. The problem again is that the underlying rationale for prohibited or permitted actions is not clear.

Copyright Statement
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2024© Benjamin Shaw. 'Aramaic Thoughts' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each story, along with a link to https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/aramaic-thoughts.html  2) 'Aramaic Thoughts' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service.