Q&A: Give-and-Take — Shakla ve-Tarya
Give-and-Take — Shakla ve-Tarya
Question
A small piquant detail occurred to me, and I said I’d present it to you even though it isn’t really a question. Also, it seems strange to me that I don’t remember ever seeing this written anywhere, and I also tried searching and found nothing. Apparently this is the kind of thing all lovers of chatter would be delighted to chatter about, so I’d be happy if someone could point me to a source.
In Hebrew it is masa u-matan (“give-and-take”), and in Aramaic shakla ve-tarya. Shakla means taking; what does tarya mean? On the “Hebrew Language Dictionary” site they explained tarya as throwing. Similarly, in the Arukh, under the entry tar, he writes that tirya means shaking and movement, and he brings several examples, among them: “one must distance the millstones” — I would have thought it was because of tirya; and in Rashi: “the ground trembles from its rolling.”
That is, in Hebrew there is carrying and giving: one gives to his fellow, and all that remains for him is to carry what has been placed in his hands. But in Aramaic there is taking and throwing: sometimes one takes by himself from the other, and sometimes he throws at him what he wants to give him. The piquant detail is that the Hebrew term for discussion suggests calm waters and a shared effort, while the Aramaic term in the language generally used for give-and-take suggests a storm, like two adversaries. I called one “pleasantness” and the other “destructive blows”: “the scholars in the Land of Israel, who make Jewish law pleasant for one another,” and “the scholars in Babylonia, who batter one another in Jewish law.”
Answer
Let the readers come and comment or provide a source.
Discussion on Answer
Nothing is necessary, but in masa u-matan taking is not mentioned, only giving and carrying. Since that is so, each one carries what the other gave him. If you give something back, then why doesn’t your fellow give it to you — why do you need to take it from him?
In any case, these terms nicely express two existing and common forms of discussion.
What you wrote — “one gives to his fellow, and all that remains for him is to carry what was placed in his hand” — isn’t necessary.
It could be said that you carry what you took from your fellow, and also give something back.