253

ASE 28/1(2011) 253-278

Alex P. Jassen

Tracing the Threads of Jewish Law:The Sabbath Carrying Prohibitionfrom Jeremiah to the Rabbis

I. INTRODUCTION

This study explores the development of the prohibition against carry-ing on the Sabbath in ancient Judaism.1 In what follows, I examine theseemingly simple issue of what type of items may not be carried on theSabbath. My journey through the ancient texts begins with content inthe Hebrew Bible itself. In particular, my analysis of Sabbath materialfrom the Pentateuch and the book of Jeremiah seeks to understand thevery origins of a restriction on carrying on the Sabbath in ancient Is-rael, which appears for the first time in Jer 17,19-27. I then turn my at-tention to texts from later Judaism: the book of Nehemiah, the book ofJubilees, three legal texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Mishnah.Each of the passages examined seeks to update and expand the limitedscriptural laws regarding carrying on the Sabbath. In particular, all ofthese texts offer a unique perspective on the question of what specificitems fall under the purview of the carrying prohibition.

My interests in these texts are both historical and exegetical. Aswith all laws in ancient Israelite and Jewish society, the Sabbath car-rying prohibition changes over time. This study traces several centraltransformations as the carrying prohibition develops from its scripturalorigins (Jeremiah) through its various iterations in Second Temple Ju-daism (Nehemiah, Jubilees, Dead Sea Scrolls) and into rabbinic Juda-

1 My analysis in this article draws on my much larger study of the historical and exegeti-

cal development of the Sabbath carrying prohibition in ancient Judaism. See Alex P. Jassen,Law and Exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Sabbath Carrying Prohibition in Compara-tive Perspective, in: L.H. Schiffman S. Tzoref (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: Scho-larly Contributions of New York University Faculty and Alumni (STDJ, 89), Leiden, Brill,2010, 115-56.

254

ism (Mishnah). This study therefore reinforces the understanding oflaw in ancient Judaism as a dynamic force that experiences changeover time and place.

My analysis of these texts also seeks to explore their exegetical re-lationship to one another. The material examined in this study does notstand in textual isolation. Rather, each text represents an exegeticalengagement and transformation of an earlier text. A major assumptionof this study is that as Jewish law develops, writers seek authority forlegal transformations in older authoritative writings. The history ofJewish law and legal exegesis is therefore a history of rewriting oldertexts. The later text harnesses the authority of the earlier text throughits reuse of language from the older text. The later text infuses theolder text with new meaning and legal application in its new literarysetting. This process is common in the Hebrew Bible itself, mostprominently in the way in which the book of Deuteronomy transformsolder Israelite law through the exegetical engagement with earlier legalmaterial in the Pentateuch.2 A similar process of rewriting earlier textsis perhaps the most prominent feature of exegetical material both le-gal and non-legal in Second Temple period Judaism.3 My analysis ofthe Sabbath carrying prohibition therefore traces not merely the historyof this law, but also the strategies by which later authors exegeticallyengage and transform earlier textual material. The results of this studyaffirm that all formulations of the Sabbath carrying prohibition shouldmore precisely be understood as reformulations of Sabbath law.

II. SABBATH LAW IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

The case of the Sabbath presented a unique challenge to Jews inthe Second Temple period. By the Second Temple period, the Sabbathhad acquired a sacred and central status in Judaism.4 The Sabbath wasregarded as a day in which one ceased from all manner of work. Incarving out the parameters of this divinely mandated rest, Jews in the

2 On Deuteronomy, see especially Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneu-

tics of Legal Innovation, New York, Oxford University Press, 1997; and Jeffrey Stackert, Re-writing the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (FAT, 52),Tbingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007. The most comprehensive treatment of this phenomenonwithin the Hebrew Bible (so-called inner-biblical exegesis) and its hermeneutic models isMichael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford, Clarendon, 1985.

3 See Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, Grand Rap-

ids, Eerdmans, 2008.4 On the Sabbath in ancient Judaism, see Lutz Doering, Schabbat: Sabbathalacha und -

praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (TSAJ, 78), Tbingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1999;and Herold Weiss, A Day of Gladness. The Sabbath among Jews and Christians in Antiquity,Columbia/SC, University of South Carolina Press, 2003.

255

Second Temple period sought to draw upon the same resources they al-ways had when faced with the need to update and expand ancient Israel-ite law. Thus, Jews turned to their sacred scriptures and the manifoldpresentations of the Sabbath and its ritual obligations.

Among all subtleties of the Sabbath as found in most of the diversePentateuchal sources, the Sabbath is regarded as a day in which oneceases from work along with the members of ones household.5 This isparticularly true of the exhortation to rest as found in the two versionsof the Sabbath law in the Decalogue:

Exodus: 8Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. 9Six daysyou shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sab-bath of the Lord your God: you shall not do any work you, yourson or daughter, your male or female slave, or your cattle, or thestranger who is within your settlements. 11For in six days the Lordmade heaven and earth and sea, and all that is in them, and He restedon the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day andhallowed it (Exod 20,8-11).Deuteronomy: 12Observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy, as theLord your God has commanded you. 13Six days you shall labor anddo all your work, 14but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord yourGod; you shall not do any work you, your son or your daughter,your male or female slave, your ox or your ass, or any of your cattle,or the stranger in your settlements, so that your male and femaleslave may rest as you do. 15Remember that you were a slave in theland of Egypt and the Lord your God freed you from there with amighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your Godhas commanded you to observe the Sabbath day (Deut 5,12-15).

While the two versions of the Decalogue differ in the reason for ob-servance of the Sabbath, both affirm the characterization of the Sabbath asa day in which one ceases from work normally undertaken during the

5 For attempts to understand the Sabbath in the context of sensitivity to the Pentateuchal

sources, see Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath. A Tradition-HistoricalInvestigation (SBLDS, 7), Missoula, Society of Biblical Literature, 1972, 62-92; IsraelKnohl, The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis,Fortress, 1995, 14-19; Baruch J. Schwartz, The Sabbath in the Torah Sources, paper pre-sented at the 2007 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting (Biblical Law section). Ac-cessed at ; Jeffrey Stackert, The Sabbath ofthe Land in the Holiness Legislation: Combining Priestly and Non-Priestly Perspectives,CBQ 73 (2011) 239-50. For a more synthetic treatment that glosses over purported source-critical divisions, see Gerhard F. Hasel, The Sabbath in the Pentateuch, in: K.A. Strand D.A. Augsburger (eds.), The Sabbath in Scripture and History, Washington/D.C., Reviewand Herald Publishing Association, 1982, 21-43. See also Daniel C. Timmer, Creation, Tab-ernacle and Sabbath. The Sabbath Frame of Exod 31:12-17; 35:1-3 in Exegetical andTheological Perspective (FRLANT, 227), Gttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009, whoattempts to integrate some results from source criticism into his synchronic analysis.

256

week (so also Exod 16,26; 23,12; 31,12-17; 35,1-3; Lev 23,3).6 Yet, nospecific details regarding ancient Israelite notions of the expected restare provided alongside the general exhortation to cease from work. Afew Pentateuchal passages associated with the Priestly source do providesome detail.7 Thus, for example, Exod 35,1-3 singles out kindling fireas explicitly forbidden.8 Exod 34,21 identifies plowing and harvestingas examples of prohibited work on the Sabbath.9 The story of the mancondemned for gathering sticks on the Sabbath in Num 15,32-36 intro-duces another example of a specific prohibition. Exod 16,23, generallyassigned to the J source, seems to allude to an early practice of re-fraining from cooking on the Sabbath.10 The very presence of these spe-cific details, however, makes the lack of specificity in the other Pen-tateuchal Sabbath laws even more glaring.

Baruch J. Schwartz has argued that the widespread identification ofthe Sabbath as a day of rest is reflective of the simple fact that in an-cient Israel, a weekly cessation of labor called abbt was practiced, orat least believed to be in force.11 Accordingly, the varied pres-entations of the Sabbath in the diverse Pentateuchal sources resultfrom the desire to infuse this reality based practice with the divine im-primatur. This understanding of the literary origins of the Sabbath inthe Pentateuch thus explains the paucity of detail. As a literary re-sponse to a regularly practiced weekly cessation of labor, the Pen-tateuchal Sabbath laws need no further specificity. Both author andreader were generally aware of what labor was avoided on the seventhday.

6 On this recurring theme in Pentateuchal Sabbath law, see Andreasen, The Old Testa-

ment Sabbath..., 161-65.7 On the Sabbath in the Priestly source, see especially Schwartz, The Sabbath in the To-

rah Sources..., 10-13.8 For suggestions as to why Exod 35,1-3 specifically proscribes fire on the Sabbath, see

discussion in Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle and Sabbath..., 57-59.9 On the presumed priestly origins of this passage, see especially Shimon Bar-On, The Fes-

tival Calendars in Exodus XXIII 14-19 and XXXIV 18-26, VT 48 (1998) 161-95: 169-70.10

Exodus 16 is generally identified as composed of both priestly and non-priestly ele-ments, though the Sabbath material is best traced to J. See Schwartz, The Sabbath in theTorah Sources..., 3-7; compared with William H.C. Propp, Exodus 1-18. A New Translationwith Introduction and Commentary (AB, 2), New York, Doubleday, 1998, 588-90.

11 Schwartz, The Sabbath in the Torah Sources..., 1-2. This observation is separate from

the possible origins of the idea of a recurring day of rest in ancient Israel. Scholars have longlabored to identify a source for the Israelite Sabbath in practices known from ancient NearEastern cultures, though this issue remains an open debate. For a summary of possibilities,see Andreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath..., 93-121; Hasel, The Sabbath in the Penta-teuch..., 21-22.

257

As the Sabbath becomes institutionalized and Israelite law itself de-velops in both literary form and prescriptive force, the understanding ofthe origins and significance of the Sabbath changes dramatically. Thehuman institution of the Sabbath requires its own set of rules and ex-pectations. Unfortunately, the Pentateuch proves to be a woefully lack-ing resource for Israelites and later Jews seeking to understand whatexactly can and cannot be done on the Sabbath. One finds scatteredthrough other biblical texts expanded notions of Sabbath observance(e.g., Amos 8,5; Isa 58,13-14; Jer 17,19-27; Neh 10,32; 13,15-22). Theemphasis on commerce and general business in several of these pas-sages is consistent with the general sense of what it means to abstainfrom work on the Sabbath. At the same time, they reflect a growingexpansion of the general Pentateuchal commandment to rest on theSabbath to comport with contemporaneous notions of what constituteslabor.

Among the non-Pentateuchal passages, Jer 17,19-27 identifies theact of carrying a load (ma) as a specific violation of the Sabbath:

19Thus said the Lord to me: Go and stand in the Peoples Gate, by

which the kings of Judah enter and by which they go forth, and in allthe gates of Jerusalem, 20and say to them: Hear the word of the Lord,O kings of Judah, and all Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalemwho enter by these gates! 21Thus said the Lord: Guard yourselves foryour own sake against carrying (ti) a load (ma) on the Sabbathday, and bringing it (wa-hbtem) through the gates of Jerusalem.22Nor shall you carry out a load (ma) from your houses on theSabbath day, or do any work, but you shall hallow the Sabbath day, asI commanded your fathers. (23But they would not listen or turn theirear; they stiffened their necks and would not pay heed or accept disci-pline.) 24If you obey Me declares the Lord and do not bring in(hb) a load (ma) through the gates of this city on the Sabbathday, but hallow the Sabbath day and do not do any work on it, 25thenthrough the gates of this city shall enter kings who sit upon the throneof David, with their officers riding on chariots and horses, they andtheir officers and the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.And this city shall be inhabited for all time. 26And people shall comefrom the towns of Judah and from the environs of Jerusalem, and fromthe land of Benjamin, and from the Shephelah, and from the hillcountry, and from the Negeb, bringing burnt offerings and sacrifices,meal offerings and frankincense, and bringing offerings of thanksgiv-ing to the House of the Lord. 27But if you do not obey My command tohallow the Sabbath day and to carry in no load through the gates of Je-rusalem on the Sabbath day, then I will set fire to its gates; it shallconsume the fortresses of Jerusalem and it shall not be extinguished.(Jer 17,19-27; modified NJPS)

258

Two interrelated elements are present in this pericope. On the onehand, Jer 17,19-27 represents a scathing prophetic invective againstdesecration of the Sabbath. The locus of this Sabbath desecration is theengagement in commercial pursuits on the Sabbath. The propheticcensure specifically singles out the act of carrying a load in the serviceof these commercial pursuits. Failure to abstain from these actions, de-cries Jer 17,19-27, will result in devastating consequences for Jerusa-lem and its inhabitants. Alongside the prophetic invective, this peri-cope provides evidence for the emerging notion of both commercialpursuits and carrying as specific activities restricted on the Sabbath. Inparticular, Jer 17,21-22 expands the Pentateuchal requirement to reston the Sabbath to include refraining from carrying and provides spe-cific details regarding this aspect of Sabbath observance.12 In so doing,Jer 17,21-22 becomes the primary scriptural source for the prohibitionagainst carrying on the Sabbath.

As a prophetic invective, the language of Jer 17,21-22 fulfils its task.As a Sabbath prohibition the capacity in which it was clearly under-stood in later Judaism it fails to provide the desired explicit legal lan-guage. As such, Jer 17,21-22 becomes the object of intense exegeticalscrutiny and reformulation in later Judaism. In particular, later readers ofJeremiah sought greater clarity regarding the precise parameters of thecarrying prohibition. While this passage opens with a general condemna-tion of carrying a load on the Sabbath (v. 21b), two more specific as-pects are thereafter delineated. Jer 17,21-22 warns against carryingthrough the city gates (v. 21c) and outside of ones house (v. 22a). Doesthe prohibition apply only to these two specific cases or is it a more gen-eral proscription for all carrying on the Sabbath?

Another potential legal ambiguity in Jer 17,21-22 involves themeaning of the load (ma) in this passage. In all likelihood, thisterminology denotes the physical items that constitute the object ofcommerce. Yet, are there precise parameters as to what constitutes aload that one may not carry on the Sabbath? For example, later read-ers might wonder if commercial items not in view in Jer 17,19-27 alsofall under the purview of the meaning of load in Jeremiah. Whatabout items that have nothing to do with commercial pursuits? In whatfollows, I explore four different approaches to resolving this veryquestion. In each, an attempt is made to update the meaning ofload in Jeremiah in the context of the emerging formal restriction oncarrying on the Sabbath. As suggested above, the expansion of themeaning of the scriptural content is achieved through the appropriationand transformation of the language of Jer 17,21-22.

12 On the exegetical relationship between Jer 17,21-22 and the Sabbath law in Deut 5,12-

14, see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation..., 131-33.

259

III. ON THE MEANING OF LOAD (MA) IN JEREMIAH.FOUR LEGAL-EXEGETICAL RE-FORMULATIONS

1. The Book of NehemiahThe earliest legal-exegetical reformulation of the meaning of

load in Jeremiah is found in the book of Nehemiah. As in Jer 17,19-27, Neh 13,15-19 recounts Nehemiahs attempt to combat commercialactivity transpiring in Jerusalem on the Sabbath.13 This passage em-beds a condemnation of carrying on the Sabbath within its broader cri-tique of mercantile pursuits on the Sabbath. In the condemnation ofcarrying, Nehemiah draws upon language and imagery from Jer 17,19-27 (marked by underlining):14

15At that time I saw men in Judah treading winepresses on the Sab-

bath, and others bringing (u-mbm) heaps of grain and loadingthem onto asses, also wine, grapes, figs, and all sorts of goods (w-khol ma), and bringing (u-mbm) them into Jerusalem on theSabbath. I admonished them there and then for selling provisions.16Tyrians who lived there brought (mbm) fish and all sorts ofwares and sold them on the Sabbath to the Judahites in Jerusalem. 17Icensured the nobles of Judah, saying to them, What evil thing isthis that you are doing, profaning the Sabbath day! 18This is justwhat your ancestors did, and for it God brought all this misfortuneon this city; and now you give cause for further wrath against Israelby profaning the Sabbath! (see Jer 17,27) 19When shadows filledthe gateways of Jerusalem at the approach of the Sabbath, I gave or-ders that the doors be closed, and ordered them not to be opened un-til after the Sabbath. I stationed some of my servants at the gates, sothat no goods (ma) should enter on the Sabbath. (Neh 13,15-19;NJPS)

13 Several scholars have argued that the passage in Jeremiah is in fact formulated as pro-

phetic support for the Sabbath law in Nehemiah. See discussion and bibliography in An-dreasen, The Old Testament Sabbath..., 31-34; and Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20. A NewTranslation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 21A), New York, Doubleday, 1999,802-4. The strongest argument in favor of the primacy of Jeremiah, as asserted by MichaelFishbane, is that Nehemiah, unlike Jeremiah, includes the issue of selling. It is thus morelikely that Nehemiah expanded upon Jeremiah than that Jeremiah shortened Nehemiah(Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation..., 131 n. 70). See the additional arguments collected byLundbom.

14 The translation provided here follows NJPS in making a distinction between the ren-

dering of the exact same Hebrew term ma in Jeremiah (load) and Nehemiah(goods). Indeed, the translation goods fits nicely Nehemiahs emphasis on the specificcommercial items in contrast to the general condemnation of commercial activity inJeremiah.

260

The explicit use of language and imagery drawn from Jer 17,19-27indicates that Nehemiah intends to condemn these individuals for vio-lating the restriction on carrying on the Sabbath in addition to censur-ing them for their pursuit of general business activity on the Sabbath.15In so doing, Nehemiah retains the basic contours of the condemnationof carrying in Jeremiah.

The most significant legal and exegetical amplification in Ne-hemiah concerns the identification of what items may not be carried onthe Sabbath. In two instances, Nehemiah refers to the load (ma)from Jeremiah (vv. 15, 19). As noted above, the term load inJeremiah likely has some mercantile objects in mind. At the sametime, the vagueness of the term makes it difficult to apply to actual cir-cumstances of Sabbath activity. Nehemiah 13,15 rewrites the passagefrom Jeremiah, adding specific details regarding what constitutes aload, as outlined in table one:

Jeremiah Nehemiah

Jer 17,21: (Guard yourselvesagainst...) (b) carrying (ti) a load(ma) on the Sabbath day, (c)and bringing (wa-hbtem) itthrough the gates of Jerusalem.

Jer 17,24: and do not bring in(hb) a load (ma) through thegates of this city on the Sabbathday.

Neh 13,15: (b) bringing (u-mbm) heaps of grain and load-ing them onto asses, also wine,grapes, figs, and all sorts of goods(w-khol ma), (c) and bringing(u-mbm) them into Jerusalemon the Sabbath day.

Table 1: The Interpretation of Load (Jer 17,21.24) in Neh 13,15

Neh 13,15 draws its language from Jer 17,21 and 24, as indicatedby the various forms of underlining. Regarding the general condemna-tion of carrying, Neh 13,15c follows Jer 17,21c in focusing on the actof bringing items into Jerusalem, though with slightly modified lan-guage. The reformulation of the meaning of load in Jeremiah (asmarked by single-underlining) is found in the rewriting of Jer 17,21bin Neh 13,15b:

15 On the specific offenses singled out in this pericope and their relationship to the cove-

nantal declaration against buying goods on the Sabbath in Neh 10,32, see discussion in Jo-seph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah. A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia, Westminster, 1988,359.

261

Jer 17,21b: carrying (ti) a load (ma) on the Sabbath day.Neh 13,15b: bringing (u-mbm) heaps of grain and loading themonto asses, also wine, grapes, figs, and all sorts of goods (w-kholma).

Three fundamental modifications are discernable in Neh 13,15b:(1) The use of carrying (ti) with the load in Jer 17,21b is

modified in Neh 13,15b to bringing (u-mbm), the sameverbal root found in Jer 17,21c (wa-hbtem) (as marked bydouble-underlining).

(2) Neh 13,15b interjects a long list of items (marked by the text-box) between the first verb of conveyance (bringing u-mbm) and the general term for items that may not be carried(goods ma). This passage adds the further qualificationthat this list is not exhaustive (and all sorts of goods).

(3) The timeframe indicated in Jer 17,21b (on the Sabbath day)is transposed to the end of Neh 13,15c (as marked by the wavyunderlining).

These three modifications should be understood as Nehemiahs at-tempt to provide a functional definition for load in Jer 17,21-22 andthe associated Sabbath prohibition. The modification of the main verbin the reformulation (Jer 17,21b: carrying ti Neh 13,15b:bringing u-mbm) should be understood as a deliberate exegeti-cal technique. Bringing (wa-hbtem) is employed in Jer 17,21c torefer to the transfer of items through the gates of Jerusalem. This is in-deed the primary concern of Nehemiahs invective throughout thispericope, as is apparent from the repeated reference to both Jerusalemand the gates of Jerusalem in the ensuing verses. Thus, the verb in Jer17,21c that refers to the transfer of items through the gates of Jerusa-lem is employed in Nehemiah for the general prohibition of carryingthat reformulates Jer 17,21b. In making this exegetical modification,Neh 13,15b draws upon the similar use of the verb bring in (hb)in Jer 17,24, where it governs the direct object load.

In the second modification, the expansive list of items in Neh13,15b is placed at the exact location in the rewriting of Jer 17,21bwhere load appears. Thus, these specific items (heaps of grain, wine,grapes, and figs) provide practical examples of the load from Jeremiah.Moreover, Nehemiah modifies the term in order to indicate that eventhe previously enumerated list is not exhaustive (Jer: load Neh:

262

and all sorts of goods).16 Indeed, Neh 13,16 seems to add furtherexamples of proscribed items (fish and all sorts of wares). This secondlist employs the same open-ended language to allow for more waresto be included under the purview of the carrying prohibition: and allsorts of wares (w-khol mekher). The common thread that binds all ofthe individual loads/goods enumerated is their role in the broadermercantile pursuits condemned in Nehemiah. Jeremiah describes theloads/goods in general terms, while Nehemiah employs languagethat is simultaneously more specific and general enough to allow forthe inclusion of even further specific items.

The merging of Jer 17,21bc in Neh 13,15 is further evident in thethird modification. The timeframe in Jer 17,21b (on the Sabbathday) is transferred to the end of Neh 13,15, such that it now formspart of Nehemiahs reformulation of Jer 17,21c. In so doing, the en-tirety of Neh 13,15 is more explicitly identified as an attempt to ex-plain the intervening content of Jer 17,21b the meaning of load:

Jer 17,21b: carrying (ti) a load (ma) on the Sabbath day.Neh 13,15: bringing (u-mbm) heaps of grain and loading themonto asses, also wine, grapes, figs, and all sorts of goods (w-kholma), (c) and bringing (u-mbm) them into Jerusalem on theSabbath day.

Once again, Jer 17,24 provides the literary basis for this modifica-tion. Jer 17,24 likewise begins with the verb of bringing and endswith the timeframe, with load appearing in the middle: do not bringin (hb) a load through the gates of this city on the Sabbath day.

Through these three legal-exegetical reformulations of Jer 17,21-22, Neh 13,15 has adapted and transformed the meaning of the pro-phetic invective against carrying on the Sabbath. In so doing, Ne-hemiah harnesses the authority of Jeremiah in order to condemn bothgeneral business on the Sabbath and the specific act of carrying. At thesame, Nehemiah expands the meaning of the load that may not becarried on the Sabbath. This is achieved through the appropriation andmodification of the language of Jer 17,21-22. Even as it transforms thisaspect of Jer 17,21-22, Nehemiah draws upon the authority that inheresin the ancient prophetic word.

16 The inclusion of all (kol) here may be on analogy with Jer 17,24 which, following the

secondary invective against carrying a load, warns against performing any (kol) work on it.

263

2. The Book of JubileesThe episodic attempt to provide greater clarity with regard to Sab-

bath observance within the Hebrew Bible stands in marked contrast tothe concerted effort to develop a much fuller exposition of Sabbath lawin the late Second Temple period.17 The book of Jubilees is particu-larly representative of this trend.18 The book of Jubilees is a secondcentury B.C.E. pseudepigraphic work written in Hebrew. It is extant inits entirety only in an Ethiopic (Geez) translation, itself made from aGreek translation of the original Hebrew.19 Approximately fifteenfragmentary manuscripts of Jubilees in the original Hebrew were dis-covered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, thus attesting to its popularity inat least one segment of Second Temple Judaism.20

As a pseudepigraphic work, the book of Jubilees presents itself asstemming from Moses. More specifically, it purports to record therevelations of the Angel of Presence to Moses on Sinai (Prologue +Jub. 1,1-5). In the context of its claim to possess the authentic Mosaicrevelation, Jubilees rewrites significant portions of the first Mosaicrevelation found in Genesis and Exodus.21 One of the hallmarks of therewriting in Jubilees is its attempt to infuse its rewritten Torah with itsnew understanding of Jewish law. In the particular case of the Sabbath,

17 See especially the treatment of this subject in Doering, Schabbat..., passim.

18 For general introduction to the book of Jubilees, see James C. VanderKam, The Book

of Jubilees, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.19

On the textual history of Jubilees, see James C. VanderKam, The Manuscript Tradi-tion of Jubilees, in: G. Boccaccini G. Ibba (eds.), Enoch and the Mosaic Torah. The Evi-dence of Jubilees, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009, 3-21; and more briefly in Id., The Book ofJubilees..., 13-17.

20 For a complete list of the manuscripts and the corresponding verses in the Ethiopic

manuscript tradition, see VanderKam, The Manuscript Tradition..., 4-8. On the authority ofJubilees in the sectarian community of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism,see James C. VanderKam, Questions of Canon as Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls,in: L.M. McDonald J.A. Sanders (eds.), The Canon Debate, Peabody, Hendrickson, 2002,91-109: 105-7; Charlotte Hempel, The Place of the Book of Jubilees at Qumran and Be-yond, in: T.H. Lim (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, Edinburgh,T&T Clark, 2000, 187-96; White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture..., 60-61; Aharon Shemesh,4Q265 and the Authoritative Status of Jubilees at Qumran, in: Enoch and the Mosaic To-rah..., 247-60; Todd R. Hanneken, The Use of Jubilees in 4Q390, in: E. Mason et al.(eds.), A Teacher for All Generations: Essays in Honor of James C. VanderKam (JSPSup,153), Leiden, Brill, forthcoming.

21 On authorizing techniques in the book of Jubilees, see Hindy Najman, Interpretation

as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and its Authority Conferring Strategies, in: Hindy Najman,Past Renewals. Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation and the Quest for Perfection inJewish Antiquity (JSJSup, 53), Leiden, Brill, 2010, 39-71; repr. from JSJ 30 (1999) 380-410;and James C. VanderKam, Studies on the Prologue and Jubilees 1, in: R.A. Argall B.A.Bow R.A. Werline (eds.), For a Later Generation. The Transformation of Tradition in Is-rael, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, Harrisburg/Pa., Trinity Press International,2000, 266-79.

264

Jubilees both expands upon the meaning of the Sabbath and seeks toprovide greater clarity regarding Sabbath law.22 Two lists of Sabbathrestrictions frame the beginning and the end of the book (Jub. 2,29-20and 50,6-13). Each list contains an iteration of the Sabbath carryingprohibition:23

Jub. 2,29-30: (29) To bring in or remove on it anything which onecarries in their gates (any) work that they had not prepared for them-selves in their dwellings on the sixth day.24 (30) They are not tobring (anything) out or in from house to house on this day.Jub. 50,8: Or who lifts any load (anea) to bring (it) outside histent or his house is to die.

The original Hebrew of Jub. 2,29-30 and 50,8 is not preserved.25 Itis clear, however, that both passages employ Ethiopic equivalents ofseveral keywords from Jer 17,21-22 (bring in, remove, gates,house). This linguistic correspondence suggests that the underlyingHebrew text likewise contained these very keywords drawn fromJeremiah. As in other Second Temple period and rabbinic texts dis-cussed in this study, Jubilees transforms Jeremiahs prophetic pro-nouncement into an explicit legal formulation regarding the restrictionon carrying on the Sabbath. As such, it likewise must further clarifyparticular aspects of Jeremiahs words and articulate in greater detailthe precise parameters of the carrying prohibition. In a separate study

22 On the Sabbath in general in Jubilees, see Lutz Doering, The Concept of the Sabbath

in the Book of Jubilees, in: M. Albani J. Frey A. Lange (eds.), Studies in the Book ofJubilees (TSAJ, 65), Tbingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 179-205. On Sabbath law in particular,see Chanokh Albeck, Das Buch der Jubilen und die Halacha (Berichte der Hochschule frdie Wissenschaft des Judentums, 47), Berlin, Hochschule fr die Wissenschaft des Juden-tums, 1930, 7-12; Louis H. Finkelstein, The Book of Jubilees and the Rabbinic Halakha,HTR 16 (1923) 39-61: 45-51; Liora Ravid, The Laws of Sabbath in the Book of Jubilees,Tarbiz 69 (2000) 161-66 (Hebrew); Doering, Schabbat..., 70-108.

23 Translations of Jubilees follow James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees. A Critical

Text (CSCO, 510-511; SA, 87-88), 2 vols., Leuven, Peeters, 1989, vol. II, 15, 326. See alsothe slightly different translation (based on different manuscripts) found in R.H. Charles, TheBook of Jubilees, London, Adam and Charles Black, 1902.

24 The final clause of Jub. 2,29 (any) work that they had not prepared for themselves in

their dwellings on the sixth day is likely out of place and thus does not relate to the Sab-bath carrying prohibition. See discussion in Jassen, Law and Exegesis..., 143 n. 73.

25 J.T. Milik argues that the highly fragmentary 4Q217 3 preserves portions of Jub. 2,28-

30. VanderKam, Miliks co-editor of the editio princeps of this manuscript, disagrees withthe very identification of 4Q217 as a copy of Jubilees based on the significant divergencebetween the Hebrew and Ethiopic texts. See their contrasting views in J.T. Milik J.VanderKam, 4Q217. 4QpapJubileesb?, in: Harold Attridge et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave4.VIII. Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD, 13), Oxford, Clarendon, 1994, 24-33; and furtherVanderKam, The Manuscript Tradition..., 6. Whether or not 4Q217 is a copy of Jubilees,the purported content in fragment 3 corresponding to Jub. 2,29-30 yields only a handful ofletters and one full word. Thus, it is of no value for the present analysis.

265

of these two passages, I have explored the nature of Jubilees legal-exegetical reformulation of Jer 17,21-22 and the relationship betweenthe slightly different legal and exegetical elements in Jub. 2,29-30 and50,8.26 In what follows, I focus on the specific issue of what precisetype of item may not be carried on the Sabbath. As we shall see, Jubi-lees employs several exegetical techniques similar to those detected inNehemiah at the same time as it dramatically expands the meaning ofload in Jeremiah.

My discussion of Neh 13,15-19 identified the expansion of themeaning of load in Jer 17,21-22 to a broader range of specific com-mercial loads/goods. At the same time, Neh 13,15 leaves open thepossibility that even more items fall under the purview of the carryingprohibition. In contrast, neither passage in Jubilees retains any sense ofthe restricted commercial application of load in Jeremiah (or Ne-hemiah). Rather, Jubilees expands the law to identify it as applying toany item that could potentially be carried. Both passages in Jubileesachieve this desired transformation within the broader context of theirlegal-exegetical reformulation of Jer 17,21.

Let me begin with the passage in Jub. 50,8. In its exegeticalreformulation of Jer 17,21-22, Jub. 50,8 focuses specifically on thegeneral condemnation of carrying loads on the Sabbath (Jer 17,21b)and the specific reference to carrying items out of the house (Jer17,22a). This passage displays a strikingly simple exegetical techniqueto expand the meaning of load in Jeremiah. As in Neh 13,15, Jub.50,8 retains the term for load in its reformulation of Jer 17,21b (Jer:load ma = Jub.: load anea). In rewriting this clause as ageneral condemnation of carrying on the Sabbath, Jubilees adds any(kwello), thereby transforming Jeremiahs reference to a load intoany load: Or who lifts any load. The presence of any (kwello) inthe Ethiopic text presumably reflects a Hebrew original of kol ma.Jubilees technique therefore bears a striking resemblance to the inclu-sion of and all sorts of goods (w-khol ma) in Neh 13,15 in or-der to expand the list of items that may not be carried on the Sabbath.While Neh 13,15 employs this technique to indicate that its list ofcommercial items is not exhaustive, Jub. 50,8 uses this technique toexpand the carrying prohibition to all items.

Jub. 50,8 reuses and subtly rewrites the meaning of load in Jer 17,21. Incontrast, Jub. 2,29 changes the legal application of the load through omit-ting the term in the context of its rewriting of the wider scriptural content. Thisversion of the carrying prohibition draws heavily upon the language of Jer17,21:

26 See Jassen, Law and Exegesis..., 138-49.

266

Jer 17,21: ...against carrying a load (ma) on the Sabbath day,and bringing it through the gates of Jerusalem.

Jub. 2,29: To bring in or remove on it anything (kwello), which onecarries in their gates.

In its rewriting of Jer 17,21, Jub. 2,29 collapses the two verbalclauses (carrying... and bringing...) into one main clause (to bringin or remove on it anything) and an associated relative clause (whichone carries in their gates). This syntactic modification is focusedaround the transformation of load in Jer 17,21. Jubilees removes theambiguous word load and adds in its place anything (kwello). Thesecond verbal clause in Jer 17,21 and (against) bringing it throughthe gates of Jerusalem is then transformed from a negative com-mand into a relative clause: Jer: (against) bringing it wa-hbtem Jub.: ...which one carries za-yes[awwer. Based on the syntactic reor-ganization of Jer 17,21, this entire relative clause is merged withthrough the gates of Jerusalem from the end of Jer 17,21. In Jubi-lees, however, this expression is generalized such that it no longer re-fers to the gates of Jerusalem, but rather their gates (ba-anqes[i-homu), presumably an allusion to the entrance to ones home. As such,the new possessive suffix refers to any individual involved in carryingitems on the Sabbath.

In the reformulated Jer 17,21, anything (kwello) functions as the di-rect object of the two infinitives referring to carrying (to bring in, toremove) and as the antecedent of the relative pronoun (which). Thus,the entire relative clause in Jub. 2,29 (which one carries in their gates)attempts to explain the meaning of anything and therefore provides theprecise meaning for load in Jeremiah. According to Jubilees, anythingwhich one would carry through ones gates presumably intended to re-fer to any item may not be carried on the Sabbath.

The two passages in Jubilees evince distinct exegetical techniquesto yield the same expansion of the carrying prohibition to include anyitem. Jubilees 50,8, as in Neh 13,15, retains and transforms the mean-ing of load from Jer 17,21-22. Jubilees 2,29 similarly transforms themeaning of load through introducing a new word in its rewriting ofJer 17,21. Both approaches rely heavily upon the use of any/any-thing to expand the limited meaning of load in Jeremiah. In thissense, Jubilees displays close similarities with the exegetical techniqueof Neh 13,15. At the same time, the transformation of the law is dra-matically different. While Nehemiah draws upon the language ofJeremiah in order to include a broader range of commercial pursuits,Jubilees transforms the carrying prohibition in Jeremiah to include thecarrying of any item for any purpose.

267

3. The Dead Sea Scrolls

The dramatic expansion of the Sabbath carrying prohibition identifiedin the book of Jubilees finds additional expression in three legal passagesstemming from the sectarian community of the Dead Sea Scrolls. As withthe book of Jubilees, the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls reflect an attempt by aJewish group in the late Second Temple period to develop a coherent sys-tem of Jewish law.27 The legal texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls indicatethat the sectarian community formulated Jewish law through exegeticalengagement with the ancient scriptural traditions.28 Moreover, just as thelegal traditions in the book of Jubilees are reflective of broader currents inSecond Temple Judaism, the legal texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls provideinsight not only into the narrow sectarian community that produced them,but also wider trends in the development of Jewish law and legal exegesisin the Second Temple period.

As in the book of Jubilees, the Sabbath is prominently featuredamong the Dead Sea Scrolls. In particular, several different texts amongthe sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls seek to offer greater clarity regarding thespecifics of Sabbath law and ritual.29 A clearly demarcated unit of theDamascus Document is devoted to Sabbath law (CD 10,14-11,18).Moreover, Sabbath law is featured prominently in several shorter legaltexts from Cave 4 (4QHalakha A 4Q251 1-2; 4QHalakha B 4Q264a +

27 On Jewish law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see especially Joseph M. Baumgarten, Studies

in Qumran Law (SJLA, 24), Leiden, Brill, 1977; Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Halakhah atQumran (SJLA, 16), Leiden, Brill, 1975; Id., Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Courts,Testimony and the Penal Code (BJS, 33), Chico, Scholars Press, 1983; Id., Reclaiming theDead Sea Scrolls. The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Libraryof Qumran, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society, 1994, esp. 243-312; Id., Qumran andJerusalem. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism, Grand Rapids, Eerd-mans, 2010; Aharon Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making. The Development of Jewish Lawfrom Qumran to the Rabbis, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2009; and VeredNoam, From Qumran to the Rabbinic Revolution. Conceptions of Impurity, Jerusalem, YadBen Zvi, 2010 (Hebrew).

28 On the broader question of the presence of legal exegesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see

Steven D. Fraade, Looking for Legal Midrash at Qumran, in: M.E. Stone E.G. Chazon(eds.), Biblical Perspectives. Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the DeadSea Scrolls - Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for theStudy of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (12-14 May, 1996) (STDJ, 28), Lei-den, Brill, 1998, 59-79. For an attempt to outline the forms and techniques of legal exegesisin the scrolls, see Moshe J. Bernstein Shlomo A. Koyfman, The Interpretation of BiblicalLaw in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Forms and Methods, in: M. Henze (ed.), Biblical Interpreta-tion at Qumran, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2005, 61-87.

29 On the Sabbath in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Lawrence H. Schiffman, Sabbath, in:

L.H. Schiffman J.C. VanderKam (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 vols.,Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, vol. II, 805-7. On Sabbath law in particular, seeSchiffman, Halakhah..., 77-133; Doering, Schabbat..., 119-215.

268

4Q421; 4QMiscellaneous Rules 4Q265 6-7).30 The centrality of Sabbathlaw in each of these texts indicates that the sectarian community ex-pended great energy in the formulation of Sabbath law and its ongoingrefinement.

Three different sectarian legal texts preserve formulations of theSabbath carrying prohibition:31

Damascus Document (CD) 11,7-9 (par. 4Q270 6 v 13-14; 4Q271 5 i 3-4):(7) vacat Let no man carry out (anything) from the house (8) out-side and from the outside into the house. And if he is in a booth (orsukkah)32 he shall not carry out (anything) from it (9) and he shallnot bring in it (anything).

4QHalakha A (4Q251) 1-2 (olim frg. 1) 4-5:33(4) [Let no] man carry out (anything) from his place for the entireSabbath (5) [from the outside to the house] and from the house to theou[tside].

4QMiscellaneous Rules (4Q265) 6 4-5:34(4) Let no ma[n] ca[rry out] from his tent any vessel or foo[d] (5)on the day vacat of the Sabbath.

The shared content and language in these three passages suggest thatthey represent three overlapping presentations of the same law restrictingcarrying on the Sabbath. As with the two passages from the book of Jubi-lees, the three iterations of the carrying prohibition in the Dead Sea Scrollsdramatically expand the limited restriction on carrying in Jeremiah. This isaccomplished through the re-use of keywords from Jer 17,21-22 in orderboth to expand and clarify aspects of the carrying prohibition.35

30 On the Sabbath in the Cave 4 texts, see Lutz Doering, New Aspects of Qumran Sab-

bath Law from Cave 4 Fragments, in: M.J. Bernstein F. Garca Martnez J. Kampen(eds.), Legal Texts and Legal Issues - Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the InternationalOrganization for Qumran Studies (Cambridge, 1995) Published in Honour of Joseph M.Baumgarten (STDJ, 23), Leiden, Brill, 1997, 241-74; Id., Schabbat..., 215-23; Vered Noam Elisha Qimron, A Qumran Composition of Sabbath Laws and Its Contribution to the Studyof Early Halakah, DSD 16 (2009) 55-96.

31 For fuller philological analysis of the three passages, see Jassen, Law and Exegesis..., 116-

17. In the three translations provided, brackets indicate text reconstructed by a modern editor.32

The Hebrew term skkh (booth) could refer to a general temporary dwelling or in amore technical sense to the temporary dwelling used on the festival of Tabernacles. See Jas-sen, Law and Exegesis..., 117 n. 8.

33 Translation adapted from Erik Larson Manfred R. Lehmann Lawrence Schiffman,

4Q251. 4QHalakha A, in: Joseph Baumgarten et al., Qumran Cave 4.XXV (DJD, 35), Ox-ford, Clarendon, 1999, 28-30.

34 Translation adapted from Joseph Baumgarten, 4Q265. Miscellaneous Rules, in:

Qumran Cave 4.XXV..., 68-69.35

For full analysis of presentation of the carrying prohibition in these three texts andtheir exegetical relationship to Jer 17,21-22 (and Exod 16,29), see Jassen, Law and Exe-

269

As part of their reformulation of the broader contours of the carryingprohibition, the three Dead Sea Scrolls legal texts address the issue of whatitems may not be carried on the Sabbath. The Damascus Document and4QHalakha A both assume that all items fall under the purview of thecarrying prohibition. In the translation provided above for the DamascusDocument and 4QHalakha A, I have followed other translators in express-ing this sense through the inclusion of the word anything following theverb of conveyance: Let no man carry out (anything). The placement ofanything in parentheses, however, indicates that no such word is pres-ent in the Hebrew text of the Damascus Document or 4QHalakha A. Itspresence in the English translation is warranted due to the high likeli-hood that it is assumed in the Hebrew by virtue of ellipsis. This assump-tion is based on the syntax of the Hebrew as well as the mechanics of theexegetical reformulation of Jer 17,21-22 in these two texts. I have out-lined this exegetical relationship in table two:

Jeremiah Dead Sea Scrolls

Jer 17,22: Nor shall you carry out(l ts) a load from yourhouses (mibbttkhem) on the Sab-bath day

Jer 17,24: and do not bring in(hb) a load through the gates ofthis city on the Sabbath day

CD 11,7-8: (7) Let no man carryout (al ys) (anything) from thehouse (min habbayit) (8) outsideand from the outside into thehouse

CD 11,8-9: And if he is in a booth(or sukkah), he shall not carryout (al ys) (anything) from it(mimmennh) (9) and he shall notbring into it (yb) (anything).

4Q251 1-2 4-5: (4) [Let no] mancarry out (anything) (al ys)from his place for the entire Sab-bath (5) [from the outside to thehouse ]and from the house to theou[tside.

Table 2: The Interpretation of Load (Jer 17,22.24) in the Damascus Documentand 4QHalakha A

gesis..., 116-33. For the suggestion that the multiple presentations of the carrying prohi-bition in the Dead Sea Scrolls correspond to the multiple iterations of the law in the bookof Jubilees, see ib., 147-49.

270

The first part of the passage in the Damascus Document closelyfollows the language of Jer 17,22. CD 11,7-8 employs the same exactkeyword to express the verbal act of carrying (as marked by single-underlining): Jer: Nor shall you carry out l ts CD: Letno man carry out al ys. Moreover, both texts identify the houseas the point of the departure for the carrying (as marked by double-underlining): Jer: from your houses mibbttkhem CD: fromthe house min habbayit. A similar formulation is found in the sec-ond half of the passage in the Damascus Document. This second for-mulation of the law treats the carrying prohibition as it applies to atemporary dwelling, which is regarded by the Damascus Document asthe functional equivalent of a house. CD 11,8-9 employs the same verbof carrying as found in Jer 17,22 (He shall not carry out al ys).This is followed by a prepositional phrase from it (mimmennh),which refers back to the booth and functions as the equivalent of thehouse in Jer 17,22. Both legal clauses in CD 11,7-9 therefore reusethe literary frame from Jer 17,22: Nor shall you carry out [...] fromthe house. In Jer 17,22, however, the verb carry out governs theclear direct object load.

A similar situation can be detected in the reuse of language fromJer 17,24 in the final clause in the Damascus Document. The act ofbringing an item into ones home in CD 11,9 draws upon the verb ofbringing in in Jer 17,24 (as marked by the dashed underlining): Jer:do not bring in hb CD: he shall not bring into it yb.Again, whereas Jer 17,24 follows the verb with the clear direct objectload, CD 11,9 provides no direct object.

This exegetical reformulation is also present in 4QHalakha A,though in a slightly modified way. The opening clause of 4QHalakhaA [(Let no) man carry out (anything) from his place] represents asubtle exegetical reformulation of Exod 16,29 (let no one leave hisplace on the seventh day). This exegetical reformulation transformsExod 16,29 from a restriction on movement (leave ys) to a re-striction on carrying (carry out ys).36 At the same time,4QHalakha A reflects exegetical engagement with Jer 17,21-22. Inparticular, as in the Damascus Document, 4QHalakha A employs theverb of carrying out found in Jer 17,22 (as marked by single-underlining: Jer: Nor shall you carry out l ts 4Q251: Heshall not carry out al ys. Unlike the Damascus Document,4QHalakha A does not retain the second half of the scriptural literaryframe (from your houses), but rather follows more closely the lan-

36 See more fully Jassen, Law and Exegesis..., esp. 132-33.

271

guage of Exod 16,29 (from his place). Yet, in the legal framework of4QHalakha A, the language of Exod 16,29 (from his place) becomesessentially identical to the identification of ones personal space asones home in the Damascus Document. As in the reuse of the literaryframe from Jer 17,22 in the Damascus Document, 4QHalakha A omitsany trace of the direct object load found in Jer 17,22.

The omission of the direct object load from Jer 17,22.24 in thevarious exegetical reformulations in the Damascus Document and4QHalakha A carries with it a significant payoff within the broaderlegal-exegetical transformation of the carrying prohibition. By leavinga gaping hole in the text exactly where Jeremiah identifies what spe-cific type of object may not be carried on the Sabbath, the DamascusDocument and 4QHalakha A assert that there are no limitations re-garding what types of object may not be carried. In this sense, thesetwo texts should be located in the same context as the legal and exe-getical development of this aspect of the carrying prohibition in Ne-hemiah and the book of Jubilees. All three texts expand the meaning ofload in Jeremiah. Nehemiah includes a broader range of commercialitems, while Jubilees, the Damascus Document, and 4QHalakha A as-sert that all items fall under the purview of the law. Nehemiah accom-plishes the first expansion by modifying the term load fromJeremiah. Jubilees 50,8 follows a similar technique as Nehemiah,while Jub. 2,29 omits the term entirely and provides in its place any-thing. The Damascus Document and 4QHalakha A not only omit theterm load, but they introduce no substitute form in their legal-exegetical reformulation of Jeremiah.

The third legal text from among the Dead Sea Scrolls follows a dif-ferent approach. 4QMiscellaneous Rules seems to limit the carryingprohibition to vessels and food. In all likelihood, the identification ofthese two items is not intended to prohibit only these two items.Rather, 4QMiscellaneous Rules should be read as amplifying and clari-fying the more general carrying prohibition in the Damascus Docu-ment and 4QHalakha A. In this sense, the specific identification ofones personal space as a tent in 4QMiscellaneous Rules is intendedto extend the range of the restriction beyond ones house to any privatespace. Similarly, 4QMiscellaneous Rules singles out vessels and foodas specific items that may not be carried on the Sabbath. Vessels andfood represent two items that would be commonly employed on theSabbath and serve a practical function in Sabbath related activitiessuch as eating. Thus, 4QMiscellaneous Rules seeks to dispel any no-tion that there are exceptions with regard to their use. In this sense,4QMiscellaneous Rules is also responding to the legal-exegetical diffi-culty presented by the use of load in Jeremiah. The mercantile nu-

272

ance of load in Jeremiah could potentially suggest that items thathave no commercial use or value items that are explicitly used in thehome may in fact be transported on the Sabbath. 4QMiscellaneousRules therefore highlights two of the more ubiquitous such items andsingles them out for inclusion in the prohibition.

4QMiscellaneous Rules employs an exegetical technique similar tothat of the Damascus Document and 4QHalakha A in its reformulationof the meaning of load in Jeremiah. As in the two related passagesdiscussed above, 4QMiscellaneous Rules retains the verb of carryingas found in Jer 17,22 (Jer: Nor shall you carry out l ts 4Q265: He shall not carry out al ys). As suggested, the tentin 4QMiscellaneous Rules operates as the functional equivalent ofhouse in the Damascus Document and 4QHalakha A, and thus alsoas the exegetical amplification of from your houses in Jer 17,22. Assuch, any vessel and food serves as the exegetical replacement forload in Jer 17,22 and thus as the legal application of the restrictionon carrying a load in Jeremiah.

In my discussion of the legal-exegetical reformulation of Jer 17,22in the Damascus Document and 4QHalakha A, I noted how both thesetexts retain the literary frame from Jer 17,22 (Nor shall you carry out... from the house). 4QMiscellaneous Rules, in contrast expands theliterary frame of Jer 17,22 to include the reference to the Sabbath dayat the end of the clause (Nor shall you carry out [...] on the Sabbathday). Within this expanded literary frame, 4QMiscellaneous Rulesretains the two intervening elements Jer 17,22, though both are modi-fied (load = any vessel and food; house = tent). In order to reinforce itssimultaneous preservation and transformation of these two elements,4QMiscellaneous Rules inverts them in their reformulation:

Jer 17,22: Nor shall you carry out Aa load Bfrom your houses on theSabbath day.

4Q265 6 4-5: (4) Let no ma[n] ca[rry out] B'from his tent A'any ves-sel or foo[d] (5) on the day vacat of the Sabbath.

In Jer 17,22, the load stands in first position, while its equivalentany vessel or food is in second position in 4QMiscellaneous Rules.Similarly, from your houses is in second position in Jer 17,22,though it is placed in first position in 4QMiscellaneous Rules. Thetechnique of literary inversion at work here is a common phenomenon inreworking of scriptural material in later texts, both within the HebrewBible and in later Second Temple period Jewish literature.37 The

37 On literary inversion (so-called Zeidels law) in exegetical traditions, see Moshe

Zeidel, Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms, Sinai 38 (1955-1956) 149-72, 229-40, 272-80,335-55 (Hebrew); Shemaryahu Talmon, The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook,

273

broader payoff of this exegetical technique is clear: through a subtletransformation, the later text is able simultaneously to draw upon theauthority of the earlier text and infuse it with new meaning.

4. The Mishnah

The final text to be considered is the opening unit of the Mishnahtractate Shabbat.38 Chronologically, the Mishnah is the latest of thefour texts (ca. third century C.E.). As in related rabbinic texts, theMishnah also diverges from the rewritten form of exegesis ubiquitousin Second Temple texts. In general, rabbinic hermeneutics are markedby a clear distinction between the scriptural text and its interpreta-tion.39 The Mishnah, however, consists primarily of apodictic law andthus scriptural source material is only episodically encountered.40 Onesuch exception can be found in the rabbinic articulation of the carryingprohibition in m.Shabb. 1,1, which preserves traces of the exegeticalinfluence of Jer 17,21-22 (as marked by underlining):

[Acts of] transporting objects from one domain to another [whichviolate] the Sabbath (ys[t ha-abbt) are two which [indeed] arefour [for one who is] inside, and two, which are four [for one whois] outside. How so? [If on the Sabbath] the beggar stands outsideand the householder inside, [and] the beggar stuck his hand insideand put [a beggars bowl] into the hand of the householder, or if hetook [something] from inside it and brought it out (w-hs), thebeggar is liable, the householder is exempt. [If] the householderstuck his hand outside and put [something] into the hand of the beg-gar, or if he took [something] from it and brought it inside, thehouseholder is liable, and the beggar is exempt. [If] the beggar stuckhis hand inside, and the householder took [something] from it, or if[the householder] put something in it and he [the beggar] removed it(w-hs ), both of them are exempt. [If] the householder put hishand outside and the beggar took [something] from it, or if [the beg-

in: F.M. Cross Jr. Sh. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, Cam-bridge/MA, Harvard University Press, 1975, 321-400: 360-62; and Pancratius Beentjes,Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern, Bib 63 (1982) 506-23.

38 On the Sabbath in rabbinic law, see Jacob Neusner, The Sabbath Halakhah in the

Context of Rabbinic Judaisms Theological System, in: ArgallBowWerline, For a LaterGeneration..., 183-95.

39 See further Hindy Najman, Torah of Moses: Pseudonymous Attribution in Second

Temple Writings, in: Najman, Past Renewals..., 73-86: 82, 86; and Joshua Levinson, Dia-logical Reading in the Rabbinic Exegetical Narrative, Poetics Today 25 (2004) 497-528.

40 See Alexander Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah, Oxford,

Oxford University Press, 2002.

274

gar] put something into it and [the householder] brought it back in-side, both of them are exempt.41

Similar to the legal texts treated thus far, the Mishnah reuses lan-guage from Jer 17,21-22. At the same time, the Mishnah amplifies andclarifies the precise parameters of Jeremiahs restriction on carryingon the Sabbath. While the shared language is less prominent than inrelated texts, the use of carry out (w-hs) to describe the act oftransporting an item out of ones home suggests that the Mishnah rec-ognizes Jer 17,21-22 as the scriptural starting point for the carryingprohibition.42 Indeed, in the list of the 39 proscribed labors on the Sab-bath found later in m.Shabb., the Mishnah similarly identifies carryingwith terminology corresponding to Jer 17,22: he who transports (ha-mms) (an object) from one domain to another (m.Shabb. 7,2).

M.Shabb. 1,1 paints a scenario in which objects are being con-veyed from one domain to another and thus this act represents a viola-tion of the Sabbath carrying prohibition. The scenario described in theMishnah clearly envisions the two parties exchanging an actual item.Yet, not only does the Mishnah refrain from providing a hypotheticalexample of an object alongside its scenario, it does not even provide ageneral term for the item potentially exchanged. Indeed, in all caseswhere the verb of conveyance could reasonably follow with a directobject, it does not. Similarly, the general description of carrying foundlater in m.Shabb. 7,2 preserves the verb of carrying from Jer 17,22,though omits any direct object. The silence in the Mishnah should beunderstood in the same way that I explained the silence in the Damas-cus Document and 4QHalakha A. By omitting any reference to theterm load from Jeremiah, these texts assert that all items fall underthe purview of the Sabbath carrying prohibition.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

My goal in this study has been to demonstrate the complex proc-esses involved in the historical development of Jewish law in antiquity.My focus has been the Sabbath carrying prohibition. More specifically,my analysis has examined the diverse approaches to the question ofwhat specific types of items may not be carried on the Sabbath. Thisissue is not one related merely to the historical development of the car-rying prohibition. Rather, all attempts to clarify the type of item under

41 Translation follows Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah. A New Translation, New Haven,

Yale University Press, 1988, 179.42

See also Schiffman, Halakhah..., 114; Doering, New Aspects..., 258.

275

the purview of the carrying prohibition involve exegetical engagementwith Jer 17,21-22 (and vv. 23-27). In this passage, Jeremiah condemnsthe carrying of a load (ma). As Jer 17,21-22 becomes the scrip-tural source text for the Sabbath carrying prohibition, later readers turnto this text both in order to understand its basic meaning at the sametime as they transform this meaning through exegetical reformulation.

Each of the four sets of texts that I examined displays creativeways to transform the meaning of the term load in Jeremiah. Neh13,15 preserves the language of Jeremiah, though expands its applica-tion through the inclusion of further items that constitute commercialloads/goods. Neh 13,15 further qualifies this expanded list by leav-ing open the possibility that even more loads/goods could be in-cluded. While Neh 13,15 stays close to the commercial sense of Jer17,21-22, the two reformulations in the book of Jubilees reflect the ex-pansion of the restriction to cover carrying for any purpose. Consistentwith this expanded setting for the law, Jubilees extends the definitionof what items may not be carried to any items. This is achievedthrough a careful legal-exegetical reformulation of Jer 17,21. In oneinstance, Jub. 50,8 retains the scriptural load, though qualifies it asapplying to essentially any item that would be carried (any load).Jubilees 2,29 achieves a similar result by omitting the term load en-tirely and replacing it with anything. Both passages reflect a clearattempt to read Jer 17,21-22 beyond its limited commercial contextand recontextualize the scriptural verses to apply to all circumstances.

A similar approach is found in the three legal texts from among theDead Sea Scrolls. In particular, the Damascus Document and4QHalakha A agree with Jubilees in extending the law to apply to allitems. The Damascus Document and 4QHalakha A achieve the desiredtransformation by omitting any reference to the load in their legal-exegetical reformulation of Jer 17,22. As I suggested, 4QMiscella-neous Rules shares this understanding of the universal application ofthe law. At the same time, this text singles out two specific householditems (vessels and food) in order to emphasize that even these non-commercial items cannot be carried on the Sabbath. In its exegeticalreformulation of Jer 17,21-22, 4QMiscellaneous Rules substitutesthese new elements for the scriptural load, though inverts the reusedscriptural content to emphasize its new legal and exegetical status. Inthe one example from rabbinic literature, the Mishnah follows moreclosely the exegetical approach evinced in the Damascus Documentand 4QHalakha A. As in the Damascus Document and 4QHalakha A,all traces of the load are absent in the Mishnahs reuse of Jer 17,21-22. For the Mishnah, as in the Second Temple texts, all items fall un-der the purview of the carrying prohibition.

276

My tour through the legal and exegetical reformulation of Jer17,21-22 in ancient Judaism has focused on four sets of texts repre-sentative of various streams in Second Temple Judaism. At the sametime, this method of analysis can and should be extended to texts re-flecting the legal and exegetical perspectives of the early followers ofJesus and incipient Christianity. Much has been made of the variousways in which early (and more recent) scholarship on the Dead SeaScrolls has overemphasized the significance of the relationship be-tween the scrolls and Christianity.43 While I second this assertion withregard to the many sensationalist claims made over the years, there canbe no denying the great importance that the Dead Sea Scrolls and re-lated Second Temple texts offer as a window into the world of ancientJudaism in which the early followers of Jesus lived and the contextfrom which Christianity emerges.44 This is essentially the same argu-ment for why the scrolls are important for understanding rabbinic Ju-daism, the other ground-breaking transformation of Judaism in the firstand second centuries C.E.

Yet, in the two fields that I have discussed at length in this study Jewish law and legal exegesis there is insufficient integration of theevidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple texts into re-search on early Christianity. The role of Jewish law in early Christian-ity is a pressing question, both for the earliest followers of Jesus andfor modern scholarship.45 Moreover, law in many early Christian set-tings as in all segments of ancient Judaism is rooted in an interpre-tive reading of sacred and authoritative scriptural traditions. In thisfield of inquiry, however, the scholarly bibliography is unbalanced.While significant work has been undertaken on exploring the inter-secting approaches to scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls and SecondTemple Judaism and early Christianity, this is almost exclusively inthe context of non-legal exegesis and related applications.46 Yet, when

43 See Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls..., xxiii-xxiv; and Id.,

Confessionalism and the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish Studies. Forum of theWorld Union of Jewish Studies 31 (1991) 3-14.

44 Representative bibliography is voluminous. Most recently, see Joseph Fitzmyer, The

Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2000; George J. Brooke,The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, Minneapolis, Fortress, 2005; and FlorentinoGarca Martnez (ed.), Echoes from the Caves. Qumran and the New Testament (STDJ, 85),Leiden, Brill, 2009. For further bibliography, see J. Fitzmyer, A Guide to the Dead SeaScrolls and Related Literature, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 20082, 264-73.

45 See, e.g., Peter J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law. Halakha in the Letters of the

Apostle to the Gentiles (CRINT, III.1), Assen, Van Gorcum, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1990;Calvin J. Roetzel, Paul and the Law: Whence and Whither?, Currents in Research. BiblicalStudies 3 (1995) 249-75; and William R.G. Loader, Jesus Attitude Towards the Law. AStudy of the Gospels (WUNT, 2/97), Tbingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

46 See, for example, the surveys of early Christian biblical interpretation in Henning Graf

Reventlow, History of Biblical Interpretation. Volume 1: From the Old Testament to Origen,

277

one reads through the Gospel stories of Jesus interaction with Jewishlaw, scripture and interpretation clearly loom large.

For example, Mark 2,23-28 (par. Matt 12,1-8; Luke 6,1-5) presentsJesus as having a dispute with the Pharisees regarding the applicationof Sabbath law. While the Pharisees contend that picking grain on theSabbath is prohibited, Jesus counters that the circumstances allow itbecause his disciples are hungry. Jesus appeals to the example in 1Sam21,1-6 of David and his companions who are hungry and therefore eatthe sacred bread of the priests. This is more than merely an issue ofciting precedent. Jesus appeals to the authority of the scriptural pas-sage as a prooftext in order to create a legal analogy to the present cir-cumstances.47 Mark 2,23-28 transforms the circumstances of 1Sam21,1-6 (hunger) from its legal setting (sacred priestly food) to another(the Sabbath) in an attempt to argue that the permissibility of the for-mer applies in the latter.

A similar argument can be made for extending the analysis of theSabbath carrying prohibition to New Testament texts. The Gospel ofJohn preserves an anecdote that indicates familiarity both with theSabbath carrying prohibition and its expansion in contemporaneousSecond Temple Judaism. In John 5,10, a man who had just been curedby Jesus is told by the Jews: It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful foryou to carry (rai) your mat (John 5,10). The verb employed to de-scribe the condemned carrying (ar), corresponds to the Hebrew verbemployed for carrying in Jer 17,21: against carrying (Heb: ti;LXX: arete) loads on the Sabbath day.48 This would suggest that thelegal source that stands behind the formulation in John 5,10 recognizesJer 17,21 as the scriptural source for the prohibition against carrying.In this adaptation of Jer 17,21, the mat takes the place of the loadin Jer 17,21. In this sense, the legal source behind John 5,10 likely is inagreement with the broader approach detected in the Second Templetexts that regard all items under the rubric of the meaning of load in

trans. L.G. Perdue (SBLRBS, 50), Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature, 2009 (orig. Ger-man, 1990), 47-103; Hans Hbner, New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament, in:M. Sb (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Volume 1:From the Beginnings to the Middles Ages (Until 1300), Part 1: Antiquity; Gttingen, Van-denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996, 332-72; and Donald H. Juel, Interpreting Israels Scriptures inthe New Testament, in: A.J. Hauser D.F. Watson (eds.), A History of Biblical Interpreta-tion. Volume 1: The Ancient Period, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2003, 283-303. An attempt tointegrate more legal material is found in E. Earle Ellis, Biblical Interpretation in the NewTestament Church, in: M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Interpre-tation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, 2.1),Peabody, Hendrickson, 20042 [1st ed. 1988], 691-725: 699-702.

47 As observed by Ellis, Biblical Interpretation..., 700, based on the earlier analysis of

J.W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1954, 165.48

On the correspondence between Hebrew n and Greek ar, see further T. Muraoka, AGreek Hebrew/Aramaic Two-Way Index to the Septuagint, Louvain, Peeters, 2010, 5.

278

Jer 17,21-22. Thus, the passage applies this general principle to thespecific case of the mat.

In this contribution, I do not pretend to cover the entirety of therelevant research landscape. Rather, I hope to broaden the scope of in-quiry in the study of the ancient Jewish texts in a way that opens uptheir contribution to the comparative study of Jewish law and legalexegesis. I leave open the task of further connecting some of the dotsin the context of early Christianity, an endeavor that I know will inpart be addressed by the two complementary articles in this specialsection.

Alex P. JassenUniversity of Minnesota

216 Pillsbury Dr SE245 Nicholson Hall

Minneapolis, MN 55455jassen@umn.edu