Aligned sentence by sentence
( :) ( :) ( :) .
The Rabbanites permit this and some of the Qaraites follow them with this, and their main support for this is the story of the slaves of Solomon since it says regarding them (2 Chronicles 9:10) “And the servants also of Huram, and the servants of Solomon that brought gold from Ophir, brought sandal-wood and precious stones.” They say “God commanded our gentile slaves and the sojourner who is not amongst the religious community to observe the Sabbath since He says (Exodus 20:9) ‘but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.’ And this does not refer to a Jewish slave since the Jewish slave is included in the commandment and the group for whom it it said (Exodus 20:9) ‘in it thou shalt not do any manner of work,’ but rather intends the slave who has not entered into the religion like the resident that has not entered the religion.” They say “if traveling by sea is forbidden on the Sabbath, Solomon, peace upon him, would not have sent his slaves to the sea.” And they also erroneously cite the story of Jonah, since he is a Prophet and it says regarding him (Jonah 1:3) “But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD; and he went down to Joppa, and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish, from the presence of the LORD.”
.
And when you challenge them regarding sitting on a boat and traveling in a river on the Sabbath such as the Tigris or Euphrates and what is similar to this, they respond that the consensus has already prohibited this specifically and by tradition. And what is of this nature, it is not possible to say that it is forbidden, for their view obligates that there is no distinction between traveling by sea or by river on the Sabbath from the perspective of analogy and yet they distinguish and permit one and forbid the other on the basis that the tradition permits traveling by sea and the consensus forbids traveling by river. And this argument is similar to our teaching that when an analogy obligates something and the text makes an exception by removing some of what is obligated, in such a case we must investigate the foundation of what the analogy obligates. Does the prohibition of traveling obligate everything, meaning by river and by sea together, while tradition makes an exception by permitting travel by sea from the two; or rather, does the analogy obligate permitting riding both of them while the tradition makes an exception by forbidding traveling by river from the two?
( :) .
We say that Scripture forbids exiting from the place on the Sabbath, according to what we previously said and this is general from every side from walking and riding on anything. And it is not possible to argue that [this prohibition] is specific and that traveling on a boat on the sea is not included in it. Because if is possible for one to argue this, it is possible for another to remove from [the prohibition] riding a ship also and argue that this does not enter the prohibition, and it is possible for another to argue similarly that a donkey and horse and mule and camel and wagon and remove that from from the prohibition and argue that it is permitted to him to exit from the place on the Sabbath on a donkey that does not belong to him but rather that he borrowed from a gentile. And it would be that His words (Exodus 16:29) “See that the LORD hath given you the sabbath; therefore He giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day” apply only to walking by foot. And since all this is false and the prohibition of exiting is a general prohibition in every respect, it must be that exiting on the Sabbath from place to place on a boat or ship or the back of an animal on land or river or sea are all forbidden. And the Text and analogy obligate the prohibition of exiting without a doubt, and the consensus regarding the prohibition of traveling by river was not on the basis of tradition, but rather the basis of the Text and analogy like the rest of the textual and analogical commandments. And the teaching regarding the slaves of Solomon and with Jonah remains a branch, even if you find an explanation, the prohibition remains in its place. And even if it is completely unexplainable and it cannot be found what frees it to be permissible, it is an exception from what the Text and analogy obligate. And its nature is the nature of the rest of the exceptions and this is known from the Tradition that was fixed to the prophecy and authority according to what we explained earlier in our explanation of the Tradition.
.
Moreover, I say in summary that if it was correct that traveling by river is forbidden on the Sabbath, there is no doubt that this is according to the Text, analogy and consensus, and there is no contradiction at all in this, and there is no doubt that traveling by sea is forbidden. And this is because it must be that he who enters something produced by a prohibition enters [the prohibition], and it is not possible to avoid this, and entering something derived from a prohibition is forbidden without a doubt. And from what we see and observe is that one who travels by sea must travel by river and what is similar to a river, since most of the cities that lead towards the sea do not reach the sea except by entering via a river. And this is like the entrance to Basra in which the entry by sea is via the Tigris river. And travel by sea on this basis is forbidden without a doubt, and this is in addition to what applies to a person inside the boat from the kinds of Sabbath desecration.
.
And one who permits traveling by sea, is not satisfied to consider a boat, which is an “enduring object,” as “not an object,” until he must consider it above a house in which a person lives until he makes it in the place of a town. Since a Jewish person who travels on a boat, according to him, is in the place that he sits as a person who is in his house, and the rest of the boat and the other gentiles in it are the same as gentiles in a town, and their Sabbath desecration does not bother the one observing the Sabbath. And this is a serious and clear sin according to what we mentioned previously in the chapter on carrying, regarding the prohibition of a person carrying himself on the water and this prohibits traveling by sea. And this also prohibits riding an animal inside a home and similarly sitting on a river-boat inside the home, and this is already forbidden by consensus.
( :) .
And regarding the interpretation of our companions of Solomon’s slaves , one of them argued that even while we obligate gentile slaves to withhold from prohibited labor on the Sabbath in our domain and property, as we obligate like this the “stranger at the gate” to the exception of others. This is because Scripture says after mentioning to all the slaves and strangers (Exodus 20:9) “but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.” And we learn from this that “within thy gates” applies to all of them, meaning slaves and strangers. He said that it was permitted for the slaves of Solomon to travel by sea because they were far from the domain and gate. And he who makes this argument believes that the purpose of the prohibition of forbidden labor on them with regards to property is to avoid their violating the Sabbath on our behalf, when they violate it with our property in our Sabbath domain. And this interpretation appears correct, except that it implies a grievous matter that contradict what the masses of the nation has accepted, which is that a person is allowed to order his slave to plant for him and harvest and build and work with wood and perform all the forbidden labors on the Sabbath when this occurs outside of the Sabbath domain and property set aside for the Sabbath. And this discussion is included in the chapter that we will discuss subsequently.
( :) [] .
And another one says that those who are called Solomon’s slaves were not slaves that he owned as property but rather slaves who submitted as in the verse (1 Chronicles 18:13) “And he put garrisons in Edom; and all the Edomites became servants to David. And the LORD gave victory to David whithersoever he went.” And those who are obligated to rest on the Sabbath are slaves owned as property and not slaves who submitted. And another group argued that the slaves of Solomon were slaves of a saint of the glorious Master of the Universe, and the Creator placed them and led them on a path through the sea to travel and a place was prepared for them each Sabbath to rest there, and only God knows how this occurred.
.
And they interpreted regarding Jonah that the place that he wanted to travel to was close and could be reached within two or three days. And this is something that [cannot be done in sea travel] since the distance of two or three days possibly faces delays that interrupt the journey by a month. Indeed, it is even possible to face such a delay in the same coast one wants to anchor in that delays them twenty days or more. And one of them argues that if Jonah already refused what God commanded to send him it is possible that he sinned also with the Sabbath. And this argument is the most evil of all and we have no need to explain its failure.