10

We are told multiple times in the Torah

ששת ימים תעבוד

Six days you should work.

But many people do not actually work 6 days a week. For example, in the United States, Sunday is considered a weekend day, and many people do not attend work on that day. Indeed, many retired people hardly ever do any of these kinds of work. Are all of the people who do not attend work on Sunday, or at all, in error?!

Or perhaps this refers to all kinds of work like housework, homework, etc. Are people who don't do those things (or whatever is meant by taavod) every day in violation of the mitzvah?

I am leaving the topic of melacha aside for now because I would assume that if the verse were talking about it, it would use that word specifically. I am aware that it also says:

ששת ימים תעשה מלאכה

but I am assuming that is discussing a separate requirement. Is that an incorrect assumption?

Community
  • 1
Daniel
  • 24,888
  • 3
  • 48
  • 148
  • Intentionally didn't tag with [tag:melacha-creative-work] because I'm not asking about that. Any other tagging help would be appreciated. – Daniel Jun 04 '13 at 15:29
  • I'm not great at grammar but the tav prefix seems to indicate what one MAY do, not SHOULD do. The dibrot say "lo tisa et shem" as a statement of permission -- one MAY NOT take God's name in vain. Couldn't this statement then just be "on six days you MAY work"? BTW the http://bible.ort.org/books/Torahd5.asp?action=displayid&id=2062 translation has "can" and Chabad has "may" – rosends Jun 04 '13 at 15:44
  • 2
    @Danno, so uvayom hash'vii tishbos means we may rest on the seventh? – msh210 Jun 04 '13 at 15:45
  • @msh210 interestingly, when used in the "positive", chabad consistently translates as "may" but in the "negative" it translates as "shall" http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9884 . [those labels of negative and positive relate to the nature of the statement, not a clear use of positive or negative language] I only wonder if there is a grammatical subtlety at play here. – rosends Jun 04 '13 at 15:49
  • So an answer showing that the phrase is understood traditionally as referring to melacha would be satisfactory? – Double AA Jun 04 '13 at 15:50
  • @DoubleAA That plus an explanation of why we don't have to do melacha every day besides Shabbos (or an explanation that we do have to) would be satisfactory. – Daniel Jun 04 '13 at 15:51
  • @Danno sounds like De Morgan's laws although does it really translate matzot tocheilu as "you may eat matzah"? – Daniel Jun 04 '13 at 15:53
  • @Daniel it would be "shall" because that is a restrictive commandment in its nature (matzot to the exclusion of chametz). That is what I meant by "negative" in the earlier comment. When the law in question comes to limit by its nature, the tav is a shall (a circular argument by definition maybe, or a function of the prefix -- I don't know) – rosends Jun 04 '13 at 16:02
  • 1
    @Danno I don't think so. Lo ye'achel chametz is the restrictive commandment about not eating chametz. Matzot tocheilu I think is the positive commandment that one must eat matzah during Pesach. – Daniel Jun 04 '13 at 16:04
  • @daniel the statement to eat matzah is implicitly tot he exclusion of chametz -- it is not that this is the makor for no chametz, but the nature of the statement is that it is dietarily restrictive. Look at the double lashon in Bereishit 2:16 -- you may (not shall) eat of all trees but there is still a restriction. By 2:17, the language is "shall not eat." Either that or the translations are (if not capricious) then arbitrary -- so why is this one "should" and not "may"? – rosends Jun 04 '13 at 16:07
  • I don't understand this: "I am assuming that is discussing a separate requirement. If that is an incorrect assumption, I'd like to know how we know?" You have made an assumption. But logic tells you it is incorrect. You are looking for a source that raises your concern and then explains why it is not a concern? Can you not be satisfied with, "That's now how the Pasuk is learned; it goes like this..."? – Seth J Jun 04 '13 at 16:49
  • @SethJ Ok, I've edited. – Daniel Jun 04 '13 at 17:00

1 Answers1

2

Abarbanel explains this verse - that one may work the other 6 days - not that one is required to work.

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_33655_43.pdf

Gershon Gold
  • 139,471
  • 12
  • 231
  • 553
  • 1
    Interesting. He says that it is permissible rather than required without giving a reason. And then he goes on to compare working 6 days to Hashem's creation of the world, which seems like support for requiring someone to work 6 days. – Daniel Jun 05 '13 at 15:45
  • 1
    This is definitely the answer. I'm just surprised I can't find something really early like a midrash halacha saying "Sheshet Yamim - Eino Chovah Ella Reshut" or something like that. – Double AA Jun 05 '13 at 22:12
  • If I'm not mistaken, Ramb"m states that one is required to work all 6 days. So, no lazy Friday's or Sundays. – DanF Feb 07 '18 at 21:27