In the past couple months, I’ve had repeat discussions with various
people regarding the command of Exodus 35:3. This commandment is
commonly translated as (and commonly understood as) “Ye shall kindle no
fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day”. The following
are the learnings and observations I have gathered from these studies
and debates:
In analyzing this command, there are three phrases of interest that we will look at and seek to interpret: Lo thba’aru esh (“Ye shall kindle no fire” in KJV), bkol moshbotheykem (“throughout your habitations”), and byom hashabath (“upon the sabbath day”). I intend to focus on the first phrase the most, specifically the verb ba’er, then I will address a common interpretation issue in regard to the other two phrases.
———-
Lo thba’aru esh is an interesting construction that has elicited quite the unexpected debate in my discussions, but it has some noteworthy corollaries in the text. Lo and esh are “not” and “fire”, respectively, so the main question in regard to translating this phrase is in regard to the verb, thba’aru.
Pardon the brief technical description: Thba’aru is a form of the verb ba’er. If we rely upon the vowel pointing, it would theoretically be the pi’el form of that verb, implying an intensive second-person plural imperfect form. Otherwise, it could theoretically be a similar but non-intensive form. Regardless, it is clear that it is directed at us, and it is something we are to do.
Now, the question arises regarding what action the verb ba’er specifically refers to. That exact form of the verb used in Exodus 35:3 does not appear anywhere else in the Torah or TNK, but there are nearly 100 uses of the verb in other forms throughout the TNK for us to reference.
Ba’er is used in varied contexts in Hebrew, such as with using fire, as well as the act of separating or consuming. These contexts, of course, certainly connect with each other in some ways.
—
First, we’ll look at Torah uses that are separate from the issue of fire:
-In Exodus 22:5, livestock grazing is described with this verb. A man causes field or vineyard to be grazed (yab’er) by sending his livestock (b’iyro). It should be noted that the word for livestock in this case is etymologically related to ba’er, the verb in question.
-Balaam’s father’s name was B’or, but this is of little indication to us.
-Numbers 24:22 says Cain l’ba’er, but this is ambiguous.
-Deuteronomy 13:5 states that we are to bi’artha false prophets from within us. They are to be consumed or otherwise destroyed from our midst. Similar uses appear in 17:7, 17:12, 19:13, 19:19, 21:9, 21:21, 22:21-24, and 24:7.
-Deuteronomy 26:13-14 refers to the removal of the holies from the house, and the not removing of it in uncleanness. The holies in question were to be given to Levites, sojourner, orphan, and widow, so they were not exactly “consumed” by the person doing the bi’arthiy, but the idea of removal or eradication is certainly relevant.
—
There are also many contexts when the verb is used in connection with fire. Some of them could be treated similarly to previous examples, but there are definitely interesting applications to take note of:
-Exodus 3:2 has the bush bo’er in fire, yet the bush is not eaten. This is a prime example of the word’s use that we will refer back to. While the verb can certainly be used to refer to consumption (such as with livestock in the aforementioned Ex 22:5), the use of bo’er in this verse is certainly intended to have further implications beyond consumption, especially since it is specified that the bush was not eaten. More interestingly yet, the very next verse states that the bush is not yib’ar. If the bush is both [ba'er] and not [ba'er] at the same time, then either there is an obvious contradiction, or there must be a different implication in one of the uses. Take note that v2 refers to “the bush bo’er in fire”, while v3 has no mention of fire, with instead “the bush not yib’ar“.
-Somewhat similarly to Exodus 22:5, we have the following verse referring to fire going and burning grain or a field. Hamab’ir eth-hab’erah (the one causing to consume the consumption) is to repay. In this situation, the law refers to destruction of property, so arguably the words in question could be deemed as referring to consumption/eradication. Other implications would not be definitive.
-Leviticus 6:12 involves the fire being caused to burn on the altar all of the time. The priest is to bi’er wood on it every morning so that it will not be extinguished. The idea of consumption might be argued in this passage as well, however, this does not explain entirely what is going on in this passage. The wood is not just being consumed or eradicated in the morning, as the fire is burn continually (v13). Instead, the wood is to be bi’er on it every morning so that it will be continually burning. In this context, it would seem that ba’er can refer to the fueling of fire, or the kindling of fire.
-Numbers 11:1 says fire of YHWH thib’ar in them, and it ate in outer parts of the camp. V3 also refers to this. These uses could possibly refer to consumption or eradication, in that the fire was consuming or eradicating.
-Deuteronomy 4:11, 5:23, and 9:15 refer to the mountain bo’er in fire. It would not seem that there is any indication of a mountain being destroyed, as the TNK refers to it later as something that still exists. It would also seem unlikely that the mountain served as fuel itself. The context, however, obviously indicates a burning in fire, possibly related to how it is used in Exodus 3:2.
—
Before reviewing what we have covered from the Torah, there are some final passages of interest from the TNK. The uses in the TNK at large are fairly consistent with what we see in the Torah. While the non-Torah parts of the TNK are not inherently valid, especially when dealing with unverifiable prophecy, its use in linguistics is certainly of value to us. These passages are similar to our ultimate passage in question:
-Judges 15:5 refers to Samson yab’er fire in torches, resulting in yab’er grain and grove. While the second use could reflect the meaning of consumption/eradication (such as with Exodus 22:5-6), the first use of the word most similarly relates to our passage in question, Exodus 35:3. Exodus 35:3 refers to “you shall not [ba'er] fire…”, while in this passage “…he [ba'er] fire…”. Clearly, Samson did not destroy a fire or consume a fire, but he caused a fire.
-2 Chronicles 13:11 refers to the lamps of the menorah lba’er every evening. While this passage certainly refers to questionable activities, linguistically it is of interest. The lamps are theoretically consuming fuel, but the fuel is not directly spoken of. It would seem that the implication of burning is definitely intended.
-Isaiah 44:15, while not a verifiable prophecy, refers to a man lba’er wood. The man is not eating the wood, obviously, but it refers to “and it shall be to human to [ba'er], and he shall take from them and he shall be warmed…”. The wood is being consumed, but it is being consumed in burning.
-Jeremiah 7:18 refers to “The sons [are] ones gathering wood, and the fathers [are] mba’ariym eth the fire, and the women [are] ones kneading dough…”. The implication is certainly the burning of a fire, and “ones [ba'er] eth the fire” are the ones presumably igniting and burning it.
-Ezekiel 39:10 (once again, unverifiable prophecy) says that, “they shall not chop from the forest, that in weapon yba’aru fire…”. The preceding verse also states that “bi’aru in them fire seven years”. They are burning fire using the weapons as fuel.
—
Defining ba’er through analyzing contexts provides us with some interesting information. It is certainly used to refer to eradication or consumption, and many times it is used to refer to actual burning of fire. One person I have discussed this issue with described ba’er as a word which is very representative of what fire does: Fire destroys, fire consumes, fire eradicates, and in its very basic sense, fire burns.
Referring back to Exodus 3:2-3, we can see two applications for the word obviously being used. The bush bo’er in fire, and the bush not yib’ar. The spellings of those specific forms are irrelevant to us, but instead we are concerned with their contextual usage. If we apply “consume” as our general understanding of all cases of ba’er, we would potentially be dealing with a contradiction of meaning, as pointed out. However, using the background information we have from many other contexts, we can see the repeated uses of the term in connection with “fire” as implying a burning. The bush was burning, and the bush was not burned/consumed.
If we look at our passage in question, we notice very clearly that it refers to fire (“you shall not [ba'er] fire…”). When comparing this to how ba’er is used in connection with fire elsewhere in the text, it is always relating to the fire destroying something, the fire being started, or the fire continuing to burn. Therefore, it would seem to be most consistent with the linguistic uses of the word to understand the command as “You shall not burn fire…”.
I would even argue that the word could generally be translated as “burn” and still retain its meaning throughout contexts. For example, as previously mentioned, we are repeatedly told to [ba'er] evil or evil people from our midst. If we used the translation “You shall burn the evil from within you”, we would still be retaining the Hebrew meaning and implication in English, even if it might sound like an odd wording. Its meaning is still communicated regardless of whether it is unusual.
At this point, I might add that I have encountered a claim that the command actually refers to extinguishing/eradicating a fire. That is to say, someone has asserted that fire is not to be destroyed on the Sabbath. In all of the examples we have in the text, and as we saw, there is not one viable example to justify such a linguistic use. Even if we ignored all the linguistic evidence in connection with wordings about fire (esh), which is definitely necessary in order to expect it to be anything but a rendering which is contradictory to all others, we would be left with consume, remove, eradicate, or burn. From that angle, it would therefore be completely left up to subjective interpretation, since we would be allowing for no actual examples of such a use. We would have no examples to interpret from in that case, due to ignoring and rejecting the uses in connection with fire, which would be necessary to get to this point of interpretation. While novel and unique interpretations are certainly not always incorrect, by any means, we should keep in mind that the novelty of an interpretation does not change whether that claim is an invalid one.
Now, in regard to the common debate on whether the command would prohibit just starting a fire (“kindling a fire”) or if it prohibits simply burning a fire all together, I would refer back again to what linguistic examples we have. Admittedly, the full understanding of the word is not available to us, especially considering it is potentially the intensive form of the verb (which could have specific implications that are not apparent to us). When looking at other contexts with other forms of the verb, we can notice uses that clearly imply starting a fire. For example, Judges 15:5 refers to Samson setting the torches on fire. The word can generally refer to burning, though, as with the examples of the mountain burning, the bush burning, and the lamps burning. However, the command does not refer to “fire shall not be bo’er…”, which would incline me more to thinking that having a fire continuing to burn from twilight would be permissible. Admittedly, this is unclear and is uncertain. If one assumes that it is allowed to have a fire burning, then one might debate regarding whether adding more fuel would be allowed or not. I might point to Leviticus 6:12 as a consideration, in that it refers to the priest bi’er wood on the altar in order to fuel it. However, this is not a definitive example by any means, since one could argue that the priest is not [ba'er] fire (burning a fire or starting a fire), he is simply [ba'er] wood (consuming the wood on the fire). This is admittedly an issue of uncertainty.
———-
The second phrase referred to in this command is bkol moshbotheykem, or “in all of your seats”. I’ve witnessed this argued as implying that simply household fires would be prohibited, rather than communal type fires. At one point I also thought something of this sort might be justifiable, but now I recognize a potential issue with that.
There are other commands which use that same Hebrew phrase. For example, Leviticus 3:17 commands that blood and tallow not be eaten “in all of your seats”, however, Leviticus 17:12, etc, addresses it much more generally (these two examples may or may not be equated). Leviticus 23:3 states that the seventh day is “Sabbath to YHWH in all of your seats”. The phrase is applied similarly in Numbers 35:29 to the law of accidental manslaughter. Now, I do not think one would argue that blood or tallow would be allowed to be eaten in a communal gathering, and it uses the same phrasing. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to assert that the Sabbath only applies to what is going on inside your home, especially since the text refers to the Sabbath applying in plowing and harvesting time (Exodus 34:21). Finally, the rules regarding manslaughter repeatedly refer to situations outside of cities or on roads, which would obviously seem to refer to situations outside of homes.
Based upon other uses of the term, it would seem difficult to justify starting a communal fire as being different than a fire in your tent or home. The fire of the Tabernacle and Passover are specifically commanded, so these would be a different matter, but “in all of your seats” would seem to be much more broadly applied than simply one’s home.
———-
There is a minor point I wanted to address regarding byom hashabath, or “in day of the Sabbath”. The term hashabath is the construction of “Sabbath” and the definite article ha (rendered “the” in English). The term shabath is exclusively applied to two holy days: The seventh day of the week and the Day of Coverings (Lev 23:32). However, the term hashabath appears only clearly in reference to the seventh day of the week in the Torah. So, it would seem fairly definitive that this is a command regarding the seventh day of the week.
———-
“You shall not burn fire in all of your seats in day of the Sabbath” would seem to be the most certain translation that can be arrived at with readily available knowledge, at least from my assessment. That is, seats being applied broadly and the Sabbath being the seventh day. As I mentioned, whether “burn” implies just kindling or starting a fire, or if it could also include fueling a fire is arguably a matter of debate. I recognize that this question regarding kindle vs burn is generally the one that is debated on this command, but at this time I am not willing to offer a definitive judgment on that. It is definitely clear, however, that we should not be going about starting fires on the seventh day in our dwellings.
(From prior posting on Gr. 11/5/14, updated on Gr. 2/10/15)
In analyzing this command, there are three phrases of interest that we will look at and seek to interpret: Lo thba’aru esh (“Ye shall kindle no fire” in KJV), bkol moshbotheykem (“throughout your habitations”), and byom hashabath (“upon the sabbath day”). I intend to focus on the first phrase the most, specifically the verb ba’er, then I will address a common interpretation issue in regard to the other two phrases.
———-
Lo thba’aru esh is an interesting construction that has elicited quite the unexpected debate in my discussions, but it has some noteworthy corollaries in the text. Lo and esh are “not” and “fire”, respectively, so the main question in regard to translating this phrase is in regard to the verb, thba’aru.
Pardon the brief technical description: Thba’aru is a form of the verb ba’er. If we rely upon the vowel pointing, it would theoretically be the pi’el form of that verb, implying an intensive second-person plural imperfect form. Otherwise, it could theoretically be a similar but non-intensive form. Regardless, it is clear that it is directed at us, and it is something we are to do.
Now, the question arises regarding what action the verb ba’er specifically refers to. That exact form of the verb used in Exodus 35:3 does not appear anywhere else in the Torah or TNK, but there are nearly 100 uses of the verb in other forms throughout the TNK for us to reference.
Ba’er is used in varied contexts in Hebrew, such as with using fire, as well as the act of separating or consuming. These contexts, of course, certainly connect with each other in some ways.
—
First, we’ll look at Torah uses that are separate from the issue of fire:
-In Exodus 22:5, livestock grazing is described with this verb. A man causes field or vineyard to be grazed (yab’er) by sending his livestock (b’iyro). It should be noted that the word for livestock in this case is etymologically related to ba’er, the verb in question.
-Balaam’s father’s name was B’or, but this is of little indication to us.
-Numbers 24:22 says Cain l’ba’er, but this is ambiguous.
-Deuteronomy 13:5 states that we are to bi’artha false prophets from within us. They are to be consumed or otherwise destroyed from our midst. Similar uses appear in 17:7, 17:12, 19:13, 19:19, 21:9, 21:21, 22:21-24, and 24:7.
-Deuteronomy 26:13-14 refers to the removal of the holies from the house, and the not removing of it in uncleanness. The holies in question were to be given to Levites, sojourner, orphan, and widow, so they were not exactly “consumed” by the person doing the bi’arthiy, but the idea of removal or eradication is certainly relevant.
—
There are also many contexts when the verb is used in connection with fire. Some of them could be treated similarly to previous examples, but there are definitely interesting applications to take note of:
-Exodus 3:2 has the bush bo’er in fire, yet the bush is not eaten. This is a prime example of the word’s use that we will refer back to. While the verb can certainly be used to refer to consumption (such as with livestock in the aforementioned Ex 22:5), the use of bo’er in this verse is certainly intended to have further implications beyond consumption, especially since it is specified that the bush was not eaten. More interestingly yet, the very next verse states that the bush is not yib’ar. If the bush is both [ba'er] and not [ba'er] at the same time, then either there is an obvious contradiction, or there must be a different implication in one of the uses. Take note that v2 refers to “the bush bo’er in fire”, while v3 has no mention of fire, with instead “the bush not yib’ar“.
-Somewhat similarly to Exodus 22:5, we have the following verse referring to fire going and burning grain or a field. Hamab’ir eth-hab’erah (the one causing to consume the consumption) is to repay. In this situation, the law refers to destruction of property, so arguably the words in question could be deemed as referring to consumption/eradication. Other implications would not be definitive.
-Leviticus 6:12 involves the fire being caused to burn on the altar all of the time. The priest is to bi’er wood on it every morning so that it will not be extinguished. The idea of consumption might be argued in this passage as well, however, this does not explain entirely what is going on in this passage. The wood is not just being consumed or eradicated in the morning, as the fire is burn continually (v13). Instead, the wood is to be bi’er on it every morning so that it will be continually burning. In this context, it would seem that ba’er can refer to the fueling of fire, or the kindling of fire.
-Numbers 11:1 says fire of YHWH thib’ar in them, and it ate in outer parts of the camp. V3 also refers to this. These uses could possibly refer to consumption or eradication, in that the fire was consuming or eradicating.
-Deuteronomy 4:11, 5:23, and 9:15 refer to the mountain bo’er in fire. It would not seem that there is any indication of a mountain being destroyed, as the TNK refers to it later as something that still exists. It would also seem unlikely that the mountain served as fuel itself. The context, however, obviously indicates a burning in fire, possibly related to how it is used in Exodus 3:2.
—
Before reviewing what we have covered from the Torah, there are some final passages of interest from the TNK. The uses in the TNK at large are fairly consistent with what we see in the Torah. While the non-Torah parts of the TNK are not inherently valid, especially when dealing with unverifiable prophecy, its use in linguistics is certainly of value to us. These passages are similar to our ultimate passage in question:
-Judges 15:5 refers to Samson yab’er fire in torches, resulting in yab’er grain and grove. While the second use could reflect the meaning of consumption/eradication (such as with Exodus 22:5-6), the first use of the word most similarly relates to our passage in question, Exodus 35:3. Exodus 35:3 refers to “you shall not [ba'er] fire…”, while in this passage “…he [ba'er] fire…”. Clearly, Samson did not destroy a fire or consume a fire, but he caused a fire.
-2 Chronicles 13:11 refers to the lamps of the menorah lba’er every evening. While this passage certainly refers to questionable activities, linguistically it is of interest. The lamps are theoretically consuming fuel, but the fuel is not directly spoken of. It would seem that the implication of burning is definitely intended.
-Isaiah 44:15, while not a verifiable prophecy, refers to a man lba’er wood. The man is not eating the wood, obviously, but it refers to “and it shall be to human to [ba'er], and he shall take from them and he shall be warmed…”. The wood is being consumed, but it is being consumed in burning.
-Jeremiah 7:18 refers to “The sons [are] ones gathering wood, and the fathers [are] mba’ariym eth the fire, and the women [are] ones kneading dough…”. The implication is certainly the burning of a fire, and “ones [ba'er] eth the fire” are the ones presumably igniting and burning it.
-Ezekiel 39:10 (once again, unverifiable prophecy) says that, “they shall not chop from the forest, that in weapon yba’aru fire…”. The preceding verse also states that “bi’aru in them fire seven years”. They are burning fire using the weapons as fuel.
—
Defining ba’er through analyzing contexts provides us with some interesting information. It is certainly used to refer to eradication or consumption, and many times it is used to refer to actual burning of fire. One person I have discussed this issue with described ba’er as a word which is very representative of what fire does: Fire destroys, fire consumes, fire eradicates, and in its very basic sense, fire burns.
Referring back to Exodus 3:2-3, we can see two applications for the word obviously being used. The bush bo’er in fire, and the bush not yib’ar. The spellings of those specific forms are irrelevant to us, but instead we are concerned with their contextual usage. If we apply “consume” as our general understanding of all cases of ba’er, we would potentially be dealing with a contradiction of meaning, as pointed out. However, using the background information we have from many other contexts, we can see the repeated uses of the term in connection with “fire” as implying a burning. The bush was burning, and the bush was not burned/consumed.
If we look at our passage in question, we notice very clearly that it refers to fire (“you shall not [ba'er] fire…”). When comparing this to how ba’er is used in connection with fire elsewhere in the text, it is always relating to the fire destroying something, the fire being started, or the fire continuing to burn. Therefore, it would seem to be most consistent with the linguistic uses of the word to understand the command as “You shall not burn fire…”.
I would even argue that the word could generally be translated as “burn” and still retain its meaning throughout contexts. For example, as previously mentioned, we are repeatedly told to [ba'er] evil or evil people from our midst. If we used the translation “You shall burn the evil from within you”, we would still be retaining the Hebrew meaning and implication in English, even if it might sound like an odd wording. Its meaning is still communicated regardless of whether it is unusual.
At this point, I might add that I have encountered a claim that the command actually refers to extinguishing/eradicating a fire. That is to say, someone has asserted that fire is not to be destroyed on the Sabbath. In all of the examples we have in the text, and as we saw, there is not one viable example to justify such a linguistic use. Even if we ignored all the linguistic evidence in connection with wordings about fire (esh), which is definitely necessary in order to expect it to be anything but a rendering which is contradictory to all others, we would be left with consume, remove, eradicate, or burn. From that angle, it would therefore be completely left up to subjective interpretation, since we would be allowing for no actual examples of such a use. We would have no examples to interpret from in that case, due to ignoring and rejecting the uses in connection with fire, which would be necessary to get to this point of interpretation. While novel and unique interpretations are certainly not always incorrect, by any means, we should keep in mind that the novelty of an interpretation does not change whether that claim is an invalid one.
Now, in regard to the common debate on whether the command would prohibit just starting a fire (“kindling a fire”) or if it prohibits simply burning a fire all together, I would refer back again to what linguistic examples we have. Admittedly, the full understanding of the word is not available to us, especially considering it is potentially the intensive form of the verb (which could have specific implications that are not apparent to us). When looking at other contexts with other forms of the verb, we can notice uses that clearly imply starting a fire. For example, Judges 15:5 refers to Samson setting the torches on fire. The word can generally refer to burning, though, as with the examples of the mountain burning, the bush burning, and the lamps burning. However, the command does not refer to “fire shall not be bo’er…”, which would incline me more to thinking that having a fire continuing to burn from twilight would be permissible. Admittedly, this is unclear and is uncertain. If one assumes that it is allowed to have a fire burning, then one might debate regarding whether adding more fuel would be allowed or not. I might point to Leviticus 6:12 as a consideration, in that it refers to the priest bi’er wood on the altar in order to fuel it. However, this is not a definitive example by any means, since one could argue that the priest is not [ba'er] fire (burning a fire or starting a fire), he is simply [ba'er] wood (consuming the wood on the fire). This is admittedly an issue of uncertainty.
———-
The second phrase referred to in this command is bkol moshbotheykem, or “in all of your seats”. I’ve witnessed this argued as implying that simply household fires would be prohibited, rather than communal type fires. At one point I also thought something of this sort might be justifiable, but now I recognize a potential issue with that.
There are other commands which use that same Hebrew phrase. For example, Leviticus 3:17 commands that blood and tallow not be eaten “in all of your seats”, however, Leviticus 17:12, etc, addresses it much more generally (these two examples may or may not be equated). Leviticus 23:3 states that the seventh day is “Sabbath to YHWH in all of your seats”. The phrase is applied similarly in Numbers 35:29 to the law of accidental manslaughter. Now, I do not think one would argue that blood or tallow would be allowed to be eaten in a communal gathering, and it uses the same phrasing. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to assert that the Sabbath only applies to what is going on inside your home, especially since the text refers to the Sabbath applying in plowing and harvesting time (Exodus 34:21). Finally, the rules regarding manslaughter repeatedly refer to situations outside of cities or on roads, which would obviously seem to refer to situations outside of homes.
Based upon other uses of the term, it would seem difficult to justify starting a communal fire as being different than a fire in your tent or home. The fire of the Tabernacle and Passover are specifically commanded, so these would be a different matter, but “in all of your seats” would seem to be much more broadly applied than simply one’s home.
———-
There is a minor point I wanted to address regarding byom hashabath, or “in day of the Sabbath”. The term hashabath is the construction of “Sabbath” and the definite article ha (rendered “the” in English). The term shabath is exclusively applied to two holy days: The seventh day of the week and the Day of Coverings (Lev 23:32). However, the term hashabath appears only clearly in reference to the seventh day of the week in the Torah. So, it would seem fairly definitive that this is a command regarding the seventh day of the week.
———-
“You shall not burn fire in all of your seats in day of the Sabbath” would seem to be the most certain translation that can be arrived at with readily available knowledge, at least from my assessment. That is, seats being applied broadly and the Sabbath being the seventh day. As I mentioned, whether “burn” implies just kindling or starting a fire, or if it could also include fueling a fire is arguably a matter of debate. I recognize that this question regarding kindle vs burn is generally the one that is debated on this command, but at this time I am not willing to offer a definitive judgment on that. It is definitely clear, however, that we should not be going about starting fires on the seventh day in our dwellings.
(From prior posting on Gr. 11/5/14, updated on Gr. 2/10/15)
