Why is Melachah prohibited on Shabbat?
Click on the words in order to find out the meaning of the words.
Interesting quote:
“לדעת כי אני י–ה מקדשכם—31.13
(la-da•at ki: ani י--ה mәqadishkhem; to know that: I am י--ה who makes you holy)
Christians have been taught since 135 C.E. that Tor•âh′ is the “law of sin and death” because, the Church teaches inter alia, Tor•âh′ conditions ישועה (yәshu•âh′; salvation) upon being perfect in one’s works. Setting aside for a moment that ישועה in Tor•âh′ is a military and nationalist term that is never spiritualized to the individual “soul,” the quoted pâ•suq′ demonstrates that Tor•âh′ teaches exactly the opposite of what Christians historically have ignorantly charged.
In fact, so central is the teaching that אני י--ה מקדשכם (ani י--ה mәqadishkhem; I am י--ה who makes you holy) that, this pâ•suq′ specifies, the whole reason that one isn’t permitted to do melachah on Shabbat is to demonstrate that on the day most holy to Jews, Shabbat, Jews are doing no melachah at all! י--ה does all of the atoning and sanctifying while Jews bear witness with שבת (Shabat; state of cessation) by going on שביתה(shәvitah; strike, act of cessation)—doing no melachah at all, to demonstrate that it is all done by י--ה!
Yes, Shabbat commemorates that the Almighty created the universe in six “days” and rested. But the reason we Jews do no melachah on this commemoration has nothing to do with any notion of human creating. No human has ever created anything more than an idea; and we can be none to sure that isn’t merely a reformation of existing data. We cease doing melachah every weekly and Special Shabbat to demonstrate that Jews understand that our melachah has no connection to our eternal Shabbat—that we don’t achieve כפור (ki•pur′) or sanctify ourselves, by our own works. כפור, like Shabbat, is all י--ה, without any melachah of our doing.
כפור, being exclusively through י--ה, is a teaching of Tor•âh′—not an original Christian teaching.
Seventh day is a “day of complete rest”
Be careful of the English, even in a Ta•na”kh′ published by Orthodox Yәhud•im′. We’re not perfect either. In the case of 31.15, the phrase in the heading is a mistranslation of שבת שבתון (Shabat Shabaton).
שבת indeed derives from the verb meaning to cease or go on strike. The phrase can be translated literally as a “cessation of ceasing” or “cease and desist.” However, other passages containing the phrase help us to better understand the meaning of the phrase and the term.
This phrase is found at:
- Shәm•ot′ 31.15 (the first instance is this week’s passage)—tells us that the seventh day is a שבת שבתון, (which is) a Qo′dësh for י--ה.
- Shәm•ot′ 35.2—also tells us that the seventh day is a Qo′dësh, a שבת שבתון for י--ה.
- wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 16.31—tells us that Yom Ki•pur′ is a שבת שבתון, thus equating the Qo′dësh of the two.
- wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 23.3—tells us that the seventh day is a שבת שבתון of a מקרא קדש (miqra-qodesh; a convocation and Tor•âh′-recitation of Qo′dësh). This tells us, additionally, that the definition of a שבת שבתון includes a מקרא קדש.
- wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 23.32—reiterates that Yom Ki•pur′ is a שבת שבתון and that ועניתם את-נפשתיכם (wә-iniytam at-nәphâsh•ot•ei•kham′; and you shall cause your nәphâsh•ot′ to answer, be accountable).
This specific form is found only four times in Ta•na”kh′ (Shәm•ot′ 16.31; 23.27, 32 & bә-Mi•dәbar′ 29.7) and is always found only in this phrase.
ו (vә; and) + עניתם (iniytam; cause you to respond, afflict yourself) derives from the root ענה (anah).
Of four connotations for ענה, “to answer or respond” is the first meaning. The passage is popularly interpreted as “afflict”; however, Yәsha•yâh′u (58.13) defines the proper reason for fasting. Fasting is a sacrifice made in order to accomplish the goal defined by Yәsha•yâh′u. Fasting is the means, not the end. Feeling afflicted is the result of making the sacrifice, fasting, which enables one to achieve the goal. Neither fasting nor affliction should be confused with the goal itself.
- wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 25.4—commands us to make a שבת שבתון לארץ (la-aretz; for the land, i.e., for Yi•sәr•â•eil′) in the Shәmit•âh′ year—aShabbat for י--ה.
Additionally, the term, שבתון (Shabaton) apart from this phrase at:
- Shәm•ot′ 16.23—tells us that the first day of Khag ha-Matz•ot′, the day beginning with the Pës′akh Sei′dër, is also a שבתון, which is aShabbat Qo′dësh for י--ה; thus making the Khag and Yom Kipurspecial Shabatot (“Shabbats”)—not “lesser Shabatot.” Jews who light up cigarettes on break between services on Khaj•im′, thinking they are “lesser Shabatot ” transgress Tor•âh′.
- wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 23.24—Yom Tәru•âh′, misnamed “Rosh ha-Shanah” (New Year) in the modern era, is defined here to be a שבתון זכרון תרועה מקרא-קדש (shabaton zikhron tәru•ah miqra-qodesh; a שבתון of remembrance or sho•phâr′-blasting of a convocation ofTor•âh′-recitation. Again, and from a different perspective, the emphasis is upon calling (the blasting of the sho•phâr′ is an emergency alert call) the practicer of Tor•âh′ to retrospection, dedication and commitment, a convocation of Qo′dësh = Tor•âh′-recitation.
- wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 23.39 (twice)—defines the first and eighth day of Khag ha-Suk•ot′, each, as שבתון.
- wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 25.5—reiterates that the Shәmit•âh′ year is a שבתון לארץ (la-aretz; for the land.
Taking all of these descriptions together, שבתון, including the seventh day of the week, is a Shabbat ofQo′dëshfor י--ה.
Can “spiritual considerations” override Shabbat Law?
The most obvious answer is: “That depends on one’s definition of “spiritual considerations.”
A note to 31.12-17 in the Artscroll Ta•na”kh′—(rightly) noting the succession from building the Beit-ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ to giving the mi•tzәw•âh′ to keep Shabbat—states that: The Tor•âh′ teaches that the construction of the Beit-ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ does not override Shabbat. This contradicts those who claim that Shabbat law must be pliable enough to permit its relation for what they regard as valid ‘spiritual’ considerations. Those who make such claims first transgress, of course, the mi•tzәw•âh′ against following one’s own heart and own eyes (bә-Mi•dәbar′15.39) instead of mi•shәpât′—the Beit-Din.
The notion that what was defined as melachah in B.C.E. 1467 should still define melachah in the modern world, where work has changed so greatly, is logically invalid. For example, Orthodox students (not נצרים, of course) regularly study for school exams on Shabbat. Avoiding writing doesn’t exclude an activity from beingmelachah! Orthodox business people talk deals on Shabbat. That’s melachah too. Orthodox computer programmers may spend hours on Shabbat working out programming problems in their minds. This is hypocrisy. Modern rabbis should clean up their own act before condemning others.
Further, the rabbis unanimously recognize that the principle of pi•qu′akh nëph′ësh must (not “may”) take precedence over the laws of Shabbat. Where there is a time urgency, something that cannot be done during weekdays, it is essential that the spiritual welfare of another take precedence over the laws of Shabbat. However, this cannot be used merely as an excuse to do mәlâch•âh′ that isn’t directly aimed at the goal of rescuing a timely-urgent, endangered nëph′ësh. My point here is that the spiritual nephesh is infinitely (literally) more important than the physical nephesh. There are, and have been, Orthodox rabbis who subscribe to this view. (Rabbi Carlebach was one.)” [Source]
