S.A.L.T. - Motzaei Shabbat

Dedicated to Rachel Roytberg z"l, 
whose yahrzeit falls on the first of Nissan,
by Family Rueff.

Yesterday, we addressed the Torah's prohibition against lighting a fire on Shabbat. One element of that discussion may prove useful in resolving a troubling issue concerning Targum Onkelos' Aramaic translation of this verse (35:3). The verb form "b.a.r." ("bet" - "ayin" - "reish"), used in Hebrew in the context of fire, carries three different - albeit related - definitions. First, at times it denotes the actual lighting of a fire, as in the context of one who causes damage by ignited a flame that consumes the field of another (Shemot 22:5). Secondly, it can refer to the existence of a fire, such as when the Torah describes Mount Sinai "on fire" (Devarim 5:19). Finally, the expression refers to the act of consumption performed by fire, which Moshe observed as not having occurred at the bush that "did not burn" (Shemot 3:2). In each of the three contexts mentioned, Targum Onkelos translates the Hebrew term with a different Aramaic word. Whereas Biblical Hebrew employs the same expression for all three meanings, Onkelos' Aramaic utilized different terminology for each.

Accordingly, we would expect Onkelos in our verse to translate the word "teva'aru," the act that Moshe declares forbidden on Shabbat, with the same word he used in Shemot 22:5 in the context of lighting a fire. Instead, Targum translates the word as "teva'arun," the same term employed in his translation to Devarim 5:19 in the context of Mount Sinai. This translation appears to suggest that one may not have a fire on Shabbat, a position adopted by the Karaites and strongly rejected by traditional Judaism! How are we to understand Onkelos' translation of this word? (This question was raised by Rav Refael Binyamin Posen, in his column entitled, "Parshegen" in Shabbat B-shabbato, 25 Adar I, 5755. He hesitatingly suggests that Onkelos simply chose to use the word used by Chazal to describe this category of forbidden work on Shabbat, "hav'ara.")

Though it's hard to say so for sure, Onkelos may have selected this word on account of the prohibition discussed yesterday against adding oil to a flame on Shabbat. Here we find the Torah's prohibition forbidding not merely the kindling of a flame, but also of the sustaining of a fire. This form of "lighting" may have indeed seemed to Onkelos more closely related to the expression used to describe the sustained fire of Mount Sinai than that referring to the lighting of a fire in the context of damages. He therefore chose the more expansive definition of the term, which would imply even the prohibition against indirect "kindling" by actively sustaining the flame.

Other suggestions to resolve this question are strongly encouraged.

**************** 

<<PREVIOUS DAY'S SALT     NEXT DAY'S SALT>>

Our SALT Archives house nearly two decades of divrei Torah. Click here.    
More recent SALTs can be found by searching for SALT in our Advanced Search box, along with the parsha name. See below for an example.