Vayakhel: why keep Shabbat?

The chapter of Judaism Reclaimed which relates to Vayakhel-Pekudei focuses on the short introduction to the laws of building the Mishkan which instructs the Jews to adhere to the laws of Shabbat. Rashi notes this unexpected juxtaposition, writing that it is intended to teach that work necessary for the Mishkan's construction does not override the restrictions on work that are imposed by Shabbat. This correlation is expanded upon by Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, who suggests that they are based upon similar underlying themes. The extensive specifications for the Mishkan's building represent humanity’s mastery over the physical world. By channelling these activities into the construction of God's Mishkan, the Jewish people were dedicating their creative capabilities to God's sanctuary and the ideals it represents.

R’ Hirsch emphasises that by using the Mishkan's construction as a means to identify the 39 forbidden melachot the Torah is opposing a popular misconception that Shabbat is to be regarded primarily as a day of rest and rejuvenation from heavy work. Instead, Shabbat testifies to God's creation of the world after which He ceased, absolutely, from any further creative activity. In recognition of this fundamental tenet of Jewish faith we likewise desist from any creative activity on the seventh day. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the same group of creative activities which symbolises the subordination to God of our ability to produce and manipulate the physical world should also be used to represent our cessation from creative activities on Shabbat.

The suggestion of R' Hirsch is firmly grounded in Ramban's understanding of the reasons provided in the Ten Commandments for observing Shabbat. In the first recording of the Commandments, in Yitro, the Torah teaches that Shabbat should be observed because "God created the heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh". However, when Moshe later reviews the Commandments in Va'etchanan, no mention is made of recalling God's creation of the world. Instead the reason provided for Shabbat observance is to remember the servitude in Egypt, and the miraculous divine rescue. (A later chapter of Judaism Reclaimedaddresses discrepancies between the Ten Commandment passages in more detail).

Ramban explains that, far from being separate or contradictory reasons for Shabbat, the explanations offered in the two presentations of the Commandments represent different expressions of the same basic principle. The ten miraculous plagues inflicted on Egypt attested to God's absolute mastery and control over the natural, physical world, with His ability to manipulate the world at will serving to demonstrate that it is His creation. Ramban follows R’ Yehudah Halevi’s Kuzari in strongly emphasising the 'experiential relationship' that the Jewish people have with God. It is only as a result of the Jewish nation having witnessed God's control over nature that it can relate to Him as Creator. The account in Yitro relates the core principle of Shabbat being a tribute to God's creation. In the passage found in Va’etchanan, by contrast, Moshe is teaching the next generation to relate through the tradition received from their parents to the exhibition of God's mastery and, by extension, to His creation of the universe.

Rambam adopts a very different approach to the reasons offered for Shabbat in the two sets of Commandments, writing that Shabbat simultaneously fulfils two completely separate functions. In Yitro we are told "zachor" — to recall and distinguish Shabbat in recognition of God's creation of the world, whereas Va’etchananfocuses on the need to "remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and God took you out...". This commemoration, which contains the command of "shamor" (guard) the Shabbat, is understood by halachah to refer to desisting from productive activity just as God redeemed our ancestors.

Rambam's reluctance to follow Ramban in providing one overarching explanation for the reasons given for Shabbat in the Ten Commandments may arise from his fundamentally different approach to Judaism. While Ramban, like the Kuzari, rejects speculative theological theorising in favour of a personal experiential relationship with God, Rambam understands that humanity's ultimate achievement is an intellectual comprehension of God and His ways. God's creation of the world is a fact that should ideally be deduced and understood as an objective truth. The miraculous confirmation of God's absolute mastery over the physical world, witnessed by the generation of the Exodus, can neither provide nor replace such logical deductions. At best the confirmation can serve as a pointer to motivate and guide a person towards the correct logical conclusions. Unlike Ramban, therefore, Rambam does not explain the reasons of Shabbat in the second account of the Ten Commandments on the basis of Moshe reviewing the Exodus in order to emphasise the miraculous tradition.

Instead, Rambam understands that cessation from creative activity on Shabbat commemorates the redemption of the Jews from Egyptian servitude. The purpose of this commemoration is to recall the important truth that Jewish national identity was formed through and is thus irretrievably bound up with its unique status as God's chosen nation. This concept is expressed in the Friday night Kiddush: “A reminder of the going out from Egypt, that You chose us … from all the peoples”. And what better way is there for the Jews to demonstrate their new-found freedom and status as God's nation than by channelling their creative skills, honed in the service of their brutal Egyptian taskmasters, towards the lofty goal of creating a 'resting place' for God's shechinah in their midst? We can therefore appreciate, within both Ramban and Rambam's approaches, that a profound link can be traced between the process of building the Mishkan and the forbidden categories of creative activity on Shabbat.

First posted on Facebook 19 March 2020, here.

Does God rest on Shabbat? A Christian controversy

By Joey Israel and Shmuli Phillips

The Torah’s description of God resting on the seventh day is not widely regarded as presenting a theological challenge. We are comfortable with the idea, which unusually finds support across the gamut of traditional commentators, that God merely ceased from creative activity on the seventh day. Rather than imagining that we mimic God’s seventh-day siesta each week, the laws of Shabbat are understood to symbolise our recognition of God’s specific and defined creative input into the world at its inception (a matter examined from various perspectives in Judaism Reclaimed).

Several sources suggest, however, that 2000 years ago the notion of God resting on Shabbat was more keenly contested, and may even have been at the heart of early Jewish-Christian disputation.

Bereishit Rabbah (11:10) explains, from a close reading of the verse, that God’s rest on Shabbat constitutes rest only from the specific work of world-creation, and not from God’s activities as a judge of the righteous and the wicked. This is based upon the understanding that God’s rest marks the satisfactory completion of the specific process of world-creation: it is the cessation of that specific work that the rest marks. We might draw two conclusions from this:

1) God continues to engage, on Shabbat, in other types of work which are not considered part of the process of ‘creating the world’.

2) It does not necessarily follow that God would repeat his rest on a weekly basis, considering that the creation has now been satisfactorily completed.

The question of whether and to what extent God rests on Shabbat features again in our parasha of Beshalach:

In response to their complaining, the Israelites are given manna from heaven, which is initially presumed to continue each day. However, on Friday a double portion arrives. In answer to their questions the people are told:

“…This is what God has commanded: ‘Tomorrow is a day of rest, a holy Shabbat to God; bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil, and all that is left over put aside to be kept until morning” (16:23).

The apparent implication is that God will not be delivering manna on the following day because He himself will be resting. Bear in mind that the people, according to the plain meaning of the verses, have not as yet received any instructions regarding Shabbat. This suggests that God does in fact observe some kind of weekly rest which would preclude Him from delivering manna on the Shabbat, a suggestion which is reinforced in verses 16:25-26, where a defining feature of Shabbat seems to be the absence of God’s provision of manna.

A rabbinic view of God’s observance of the Shabbat is presented in Shemot Rabbah (30:9) which recounts a story of four famous first-century rabbis visiting Rome. The rabbis point out that, whilst man might be a hypocrite for failing to practice what he preaches, God by contrast acts in accordance with His own rules. A heretic who happens to be present questions the rabbis’ assertion by arguing that God does not observe Shabbat. The rabbis respond that this is not the case since God, whose glory fills the entire universe, cannot possibly be said to have desecrated Shabbat by carrying. Unlike humans, for whom there exist different domains between which they cannot carry, for God the whole world is His private property.

To summarise, the rabbis seem to endorse two potential positions. The first is that God does not rest entirely on Shabbat because Shabbat only constitutes His rest from creating the world but not His rest from acting within it as a judge. The second is that, given the nature of God and his relationship with the world, God’s post-creation activity in the world on Shabbat cannot constitute work.

Both of these approaches find parallels in the writings of Hellenist philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who suggests in his Allegorical Interpretation that God is forever ‘creating’ and does not rest on Shabbat as man does. This is achieved by rereading וישבת (Gen. 2:2) as ‘he causedto rest’ i.e. he made other things rest but not Himself. Elsewhere Philo suggests that, as a consequence of His vastly different nature, only God is truly able to fulfil the quality of ‘rest’ on Shabbat and festivals properly. God alone is constantly in a state of rest, considering that He is wholly unaffected by fatigue from activity.

The most striking ancient argument relating to what God does or does not do on Shabbat may be found in the New Testament, where Jesus justifies working on the Shabbat by saying “My father is still working, and I am also working”(John 5:17). Simply put, this assumes that God does not observe the Shabbat, thus aligning the evangelist’s position with that of the min (“heretic”) in Shemot Rabbah above. Notably, both the heretic and the New Testament are primarily focused on the lesser prohibition of carrying. The Gospel of John is usually assumed to have been authored between 70CE-110CE, within a decade or two of when the Rabbis named in the story of Shemot Rabbah are said to have lived. Some scholars have suggested that the term min refers to early Christians, with the insertion of “veLamalshinim” in the prayer-book an attempt to excommunicate them from the synagogue. Indeed, frustration with being excommunicated is an important theme in the Gospel of John. If this is correct it could be suggested that the heretic in our midrash who, like Jesus, claims that God ‘’works on Shabbat’’ is actually an early Christian.

The disagreement over how to interpret the biblical reference to God’s resting may reflect a deeper gulf between Jewish and Christian conceptions of God. While Judaism recognises an absolute qualitative distinction between the divine and human realm which defies any meaningful attribution of “rest” to God, Christianity conflates the divine and human identities. This conflation grants theological legitimacy to the notion that one can meaningfully compare God’s work with human activity and thus permit work on Shabbat (hence “My father is still working, and I am also working”). The rabbis’ reaction to Jesus’s claim – as recorded by John in the continuation of the passage – certainly highlights the theological significance underpinning his words:

“For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:18).

The passage in Shemot Rabbah telling of the rabbis’ debate with the ‘’heretic’’ would therefore have been addressing a highly relevant matter of profound theological significance.

First posted to Facebook 27 January 2021, here.