Q&A: Regarding One’s Son’s Rest on the Sabbath
Regarding One’s Son’s Rest on the Sabbath
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the recent classes in Petach Tikva you mentioned the issue of one’s son’s rest on the Sabbath, that this is supposed to be a halakhic command just as the resting of one’s animal is a halakhic command. I thought of a way to distinguish between the two things: the source for the resting of one’s animal is the verse:
Six days you shall do your work, and on the seventh day you shall cease, so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your maidservant and the stranger may be refreshed.
In this verse the son is not mentioned, only the animal and the servant. As for the second verse, where the son is mentioned:
But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any labor—you, your son, your daughter, your male servant, your female servant, your ox, your donkey, all your animals, and the stranger within your gates—so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as you do.
In this verse, the son is indeed mentioned together with the animal and the servant, but the matter of resting (“so that… may rest”) is not mentioned there, only the prohibition of labor. And regarding the prohibition of labor, it requires intentional, considered labor, which applies only to a person himself and not to his animal/servant/son.
What do you think?
Best regards,
Answer
A very nice idea. I hadn’t thought of it. The question still remains: what do we learn from the verse mentioning your son and your daughter? If there are no obligations there with respect to them—because these are prohibitions of labor—then what is the verse referring to?
Discussion on Answer
That is exactly what I would have expected, but it is not brought by the halakhic authorities. Even Maimonides, whom you quoted here, does not write this regarding one’s son, only regarding one’s animal.
Maybe one can distinguish between an animal and a servant or minor, because a servant and a minor have understanding, and therefore it is not relevant to say that the prohibition of labor they do is attributed to the one who told them to do it (as opposed to an animal).
But even so, the verse still teaches nothing regarding one’s son.
Now I found this in Ha’amek Davar:
Ha’amek Davar, Deuteronomy, Vaetchanan, chapter 5, verse 14:
“So that your male servant and your female servant may rest as you do”—specifically those two. For “your son and your daughter” must necessarily refer to minors, as Nachmanides wrote in Parashat Yitro. If so, the prohibition exists only when they act for their father’s sake, but for their own needs, a minor may pick and eat, and the father is not warned about it.
And now I also saw in Maimonides, Laws of Sabbath, chapter 12, halakhah 7:
If a non-Jew comes to extinguish a fire, we do not tell him “extinguish” or “do not extinguish,” because his resting is not incumbent upon us. But if a minor comes to extinguish, we do not listen to him—provided that he is acting with his father’s intent. But if he acts on his own initiative, the religious court is not commanded to separate him from it. And in the case of a fire, they permitted saying, “Whoever extinguishes will not lose out.”
Of course. That is an explicit rule in the Talmud, and I mentioned it in the class. But the Talmud and the medieval authorities (Rishonim) there do not connect it to the law of one’s son’s resting, except for Rashba (at the beginning of the chapter “Mi Shehechshikh”). That was exactly my difficulty.
And as proof, Maimonides himself brings this verse only in the context of the resting of one’s animal, and does not mention the resting of one’s son.
The Talmud, Sabbath 121a:
“But if a minor comes to extinguish, we do not listen to him, because his resting is incumbent upon them.” Shall we infer from this that if a minor eats forbidden carcasses, the religious court is commanded to separate him from it? Rabbi Yohanan said: this refers to a minor acting with his father’s intent. If so, in the parallel case of a non-Jew, if he acts with the intent of an Israelite, would that be permitted? A non-Jew acts on his own initiative.
In the Talmud’s initial assumption, it learns from here a general rule about preventing minors from transgression, and this proves that there is no special Sabbath law here of one’s son’s resting. True, one could say that in the conclusion it emerges that this is a special Sabbath law, and that is apparently how Rashba understood it. But from the flow of the Talmud it does not seem that way, since it should have mentioned the verse. And indeed the other medieval authorities (Rishonim) still refuse to see this as a special Sabbath law, and they do not mention any law of one’s son’s resting (and they raise difficulties from directly feeding a child prohibited food, etc.).
Maimonides writes regarding this verse in Laws of Sabbath, chapter 20, halakhot 1-2:
It is forbidden for an animal to carry a burden on the Sabbath, as it says, “so that your ox and your donkey may rest.” This applies not only to an ox and donkey but to any animal, wild beast, or bird. And if one made the animal carry, although he is commanded regarding its resting, he is not flogged, because the prohibition comes by way of a positive commandment. Therefore, one who drives his animal on the Sabbath while it is carrying a load is exempt.
But is there not an explicit prohibition in the Torah, as it says, “You shall not do any labor—you, your son, your daughter, your male servant, your female servant, and your animal,” meaning that one may not plow with it and the like; thus it is a prohibition given as a warning for a matter punishable by death at the hands of a religious court, and one is not flogged for it.
According to this, perhaps the intent of the verse is that it is forbidden to use an animal/servant/minor for the purpose of doing labor? In the case of a minor and a servant, that would be expressed in telling them to do labor for you, and in the case of an animal, it would be expressed in plowing.