Lessons From the Mysterious Prohibition of Carrying on Shabbat

Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman

The prohibition of carrying on Shabbat, which is derived from this week's Torah reading (Ex. 36:6), is a challenging one to understand. On the one hand, it is one of the most well-known aspects of Shabbatobservance, due to the often controversial eruvin that are constructed in public areas to address its strictures; on the other hand, its conceptual basis is arguably the least understood of all of the Shabbatprohibitions, leading even the giants of medieval rabbinic scholarship to label it an “inferior melakhah” (melakhah geruah; see Tosafot, Shabbat 2a, and others).

This designation is rooted in the fact that this prohibited labor requires more explanation and source derivation than do other melakhot. Most blatantly, it seems to differ from the general understanding of what a melakhah is, which is a meaningful change or improvement in the world, rather than an act of exertion. In fact, in is in this context that this definition is most clearly stated in the earlier literature: the Ohr Zarua (Hil. Shabbat 82, citing Rabbeinu Tam) writes that carrying is conceptually difficult because no change takes place in the object, which is identical to what it was before the melakhah began, and is simply situated somewhere else.

The status of inferior melakhah has several possible consequences. Tosafot write that the derivative prohibitions (toldot) of carrying need an independent source, as opposed to other melakhot, because of this status. The Chayei Adam (Hil. Shabbat 9:11) states that an object that has been illicitly carried on Shabbat(at least if done inadvertently) may still be used, in contradistinction to other melakhot which taint the object with a rabbinical prohibition (see also Ritva, Eiruvin 41b; Biur Halakhah 318:1; Responsa Minchat Shlomo, I, 5). R. Betzal Ashkenazi (Responsa, 41) asserts that while one who violates other melakhot is eligible for punishment if he receives a general warning (hatra’ah), in the case of carrying, the specific violation must be named in order for the warning to be effective. Further, some authorities understand that the reason the Talmud says that an eruv is not required for Yom Tov is that carrying falls short of the status of a melakhah as relevant to Yom Tov. (See also Afikei Yam, II, 4:8.) In further explaining this status, it appears that Tosafoton the one hand, and the Rashba and Nachmanides on the other hand, take different approaches. The authors of the Tosafot focus on the fact that there would seem to be no practical distinction between carrying from one private domain to another and from carrying from a public domain to a private domain; yet Jewish law does distinguish between them. The Rashba and the Nachmanides direct their explanation toward the fact that a heavy object brought from one corner of the room to another would result in no transgression, while a small object taken from a private domain to a public one would be prohibited. (See also Meiri to Shabbat 2a; and Responsa Levushei  Mordechai, 62.) Some suggest that these two approaches may reflect two understandings in the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat: is the issue the lifting of an object and transporting it from one place to another, as implied by the Rashba, who is primarily concerned about the seemingly arbitrary nature of which acts of carrying are prohibited, and the fact that relative effort is irrelevant?  Or is the concern the changing of its domain of location, as is the impression given by the Tosafot, who are concerned with the unclear basis for distinguishing between different acts of transfer? (See, for example, R. Asher Weiss, Minchat Asher, Shabbat, 1; Sam Derekh to Shabbat; Responsa Binyan Av, I, 12.)

These possibilities create two greatly distinct understandings of what the prohibition is. The first possibility would mean that carrying is a fundamentally different concern from all the other prohibited labors. In this view, the issue actually is exertion, what is generally assumed to be a misunderstanding of what melakhah means. Thus, the 38 other prohibited labors would be defined by creative change; this one is a different category, literally “heavy lifting”. Nonetheless, for technical reasons, it is not measured by the weight of the object, but by the carrying of it into a different domain (the alternative, that all carrying, even inside of a closed room, should be forbidden, would be impractical and incompatible with a proper Shabbat experience).

If this understanding is correct, it could also explain how another Shabbat prohibition is, according to some authorities, also derived from another verse associated with carrying (Ex. 16:29): the concept of Techum, which bars walking beyond a certain distance on Shabbat (Sefer HaChinukh, 24, and Maimonides, Hilkhot Shabbat 27:1-2; Nachmanides, prohibition 321, disagrees). It could be maintained that this is essentially the same concept as prohibited carrying, excessive exertion beyond a certain point. In the language of the Chinukh, “one should not walk a great distance, but rather in the fashion of a pleasurable stroll” which would be more typical of a shorter distance. A very similar classification could be applied to carrying.

Thus, Shabbat would be instructing us on two tracks: the more familiar injunction against imposing creative change on the world; and the additional exhortation to maintain a sense of peace and physical rest on that day, to more effectively allow for the spiritual renewal and internal recreation that it is meant for.

According to the other understanding, by contrast, carrying is actually a typical melakah, but one that requires greater explanation, as it seems on the surface that no change is taking place. Once we are informed that carrying is indeed a melakhah, however, our world literally changes. The location of an item, which seemed to be only a detail, actually impacts on its essence. This is a profound lesson that not only guides the laws of Shabbat but teaches us how to relate to the surroundings not only of objects but of people as well, and to appreciate the effect that these surroundings have.

This notion is reflected in a comment of R. Yaakov Kaminetsky (Emet L’Yaakov, Ex. 36:6). He took note of the fact that most of the prohibitions of Shabbat were communicated to the Jewish people at an earlier point, at Marah.  Carrying, however, was left out, and only conveyed in this week’s reading, in conjunction with the building of the Tabernacle. 

Marah was an ideal point to teach the laws of Shabbat in general. The water there was bitter, and the Jews complained they could not drink. Upon God’s instruction, Moses takes a piece of wood and throws it into the water, and it miraculously becomes sweet, and the same verse then tells of Moses’ instruction of Shabbat to the people (Ex. 15:25, with Rashi). Shabbat teaches of God’s creation of the world, and control of all that is in it. At this moment, with the Jews exposed to God’s ability to change nature in wondrous ways, they are ready to be taught this concept; to abstain, for a day, from changing the world, in deference to God’s ownership of it.

However, a prohibition of carrying at that point would have been baffling to them. Granted, we should not change the world on the Shabbat; but what impact is there in simply moving an object from one place to the next? The introduction of the Tabernacle opened their eyes to a new reality. If God could choose to focus his presence on a particular location, this factor must mean more than they could have imagined; to change location is to become something new.

Of course, deep down, the Jews knew this all along; they had previously had their lives transformed by being taken out of Egypt. Indeed, R. Samson Raphael Hirsch asserted that most of the labors of Shabbat are associated with the commemoration of the creation of the world (Ex. 20:11). Carrying, however, is connected to memorializing the exodus from Egypt (Deut. 5:15). The change that comes with shifting one’s surroundings is not limited to dramatic extractions from one country to another; it can come as well from even a subtle movement to an environment that differs only slightly. For that to happen, the laws of Shabbat teach us, we need to learn to pay attention.