Elevator Sabbath service mode (SHO)(elevation.fandom.com)
elevation.fandom.com
Elevator Sabbath service mode (SHO)
https://elevation.fandom.com/wiki/Sabbath_service_(SHO)
293 comments
I am an orthodox Jew who lives in an apartment building with a Sabbath elevator. I usually takes the stairs on the Sabbath, but use the elevator occasionally. While in it, I always contemplate other possible strategies the elevator could use to speed up the runtime.
All Sabbath elevators I've seen follow the route `1,2,3,...,N,1,2,...` which can take up to `2N - 1` steps (open/close cycles) in the worst case (you just miss the elevator on the ground floor and are going up to `N`).
What if they went `1,2,4,6,...,N,1,3,5,7,...,N`? Worst case is still `2N -1` but if you relax the goal to only care about getting within one floor of your target (go one away from your floor and take the stairs for the last flight) worst case drops to `N`. (Each step would take a little longer due to having to travel 2 flights, but most of the time is spent waiting for the doors anyways.)
Has anyone seen a Sabbath elevator that doesn't follow the standard route?
Can you not just use an NFC tag to choose your floor, or call the elevator? No button pressing required, just stand near the door with your keys in your pocket.
This is an interesting question. It involves carrying a tracker and using it to trigger a sensor. I don't know much about how these rules are interpreted, but that seems like it could run afoul of them.
A closer case would be if there were an elevator that had a camera that recognized every person who approached it who lived in the building, and which took them to the floor they live on.
A closer case would be if there were an elevator that had a camera that recognized every person who approached it who lived in the building, and which took them to the floor they live on.
That _is_ an interesting question. If there is an eruv, carrying is fine. Motion sensors are _not_ kosher as I understand it, so I think this idea wouldn’t fly either.
I wonder why having a Shabbos goy is permitted, while having a device to perform the same task is not. Maybe someone could start a company who hired remote shabbos goys that observed signals from motion sensors and controlled lights in response to them.
1. Contexts in which a Shabbos goy is a permitted solution are quite restricted - it's not a "get out of Shabbos free" card.
2. A Shabbos goy, being human, has agency, while a device does not have agency, leaving the person using the device with responsibility for making the device do something.
Such a company is not entirely unimaginable given sufficiently roundabout sensing mechanisms. It could be especially useful in Israel due to the majority of the population being Jewish and with many neighborhoods and towns nearing 100% Jewish residents. Mostly, though, religious Jews in Israel are just used to not having a Shabbos goy as an option. That said, the one time I found myself really stuck in a bind where a Shabbos goy was the only reasonable solution, I was fortunate enough to see a non-Jewish taxi driver pull over within minutes of going outside to look for one.
Such a company is not entirely unimaginable given sufficiently roundabout sensing mechanisms. It could be especially useful in Israel due to the majority of the population being Jewish and with many neighborhoods and towns nearing 100% Jewish residents. Mostly, though, religious Jews in Israel are just used to not having a Shabbos goy as an option. That said, the one time I found myself really stuck in a bind where a Shabbos goy was the only reasonable solution, I was fortunate enough to see a non-Jewish taxi driver pull over within minutes of going outside to look for one.
A shabbos goy is permitted because God did not command non Jews to rest on shabbos, only Jews. (Jews believe that God is God of all, and all will go to heaven if righteous, but the special laws described in the Bible apply only to Jews). There is a rabbinical prohibition against directly asking a non jew to do something for you on shabbos except in case of great need or when you can arrange that the non jew will benefit from the action too.
A motion sensor seems to be doing something somewhat different. When there is no motion, no circuit is completed, and the connected appliance (e.g., a light) is off.
Contrast that with a device that constantly scans for faces and is continuously sending instructions to the elevator controller. In this case, it is always sending an instruction about which floor to go to. If no one is present (and nothing is happening on other floors), the instruction is to stay on the current floor, doors open. If someone approaches and is not recognized, then on the Sabbath the instruction would be to go floor by floor. And if someone approaches and is recognized, the instruction would be to go to that person's floor. In any of the three cases, instructions are being sent via continuously-active circuitry. This is different from the motion sensor, where a circuit is completed only when someone is present and triggers it.
But like I said, I know little of this subject, and I'm sure these ideas have been vigorously debated by experts!
Contrast that with a device that constantly scans for faces and is continuously sending instructions to the elevator controller. In this case, it is always sending an instruction about which floor to go to. If no one is present (and nothing is happening on other floors), the instruction is to stay on the current floor, doors open. If someone approaches and is not recognized, then on the Sabbath the instruction would be to go floor by floor. And if someone approaches and is recognized, the instruction would be to go to that person's floor. In any of the three cases, instructions are being sent via continuously-active circuitry. This is different from the motion sensor, where a circuit is completed only when someone is present and triggers it.
But like I said, I know little of this subject, and I'm sure these ideas have been vigorously debated by experts!
I believe a NFC tag would be muktse, so you shouldn't even be carrying it at all, eruv or no eruv.
(muktse are things you can't move/carry/handle on shabat)
Anyway I think activating something with it would be the same as activating a motion sensor, which is prohibited.
(muktse are things you can't move/carry/handle on shabat)
Anyway I think activating something with it would be the same as activating a motion sensor, which is prohibited.
Indeed people that can will take the stairs, but think about old peoples or people that can't use stairs because of invalidity or temporary invalidity. For them the regular Shabbat mode is the only option.
In some buildings the Shabbat mode is activated only at some hours and not for all Shabbat to save energy.
For sure, the main reason for Shabbat elevators is for people who have trouble taking the stairs. My alternative approach still does hit every floor, just on every second pass allowing people who can take the stairs one floor to decrease their waiting time.
> but think about old peoples or people that can't use stairs because of invalidity or temporary invalidity
Do you know, that in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods (in Israel) they don't call an ambulance to a dying relative or to a minor with serious injury and in pain (with both shoulders dislocated, for example) until the end of Shabbat?
Do you know, that in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods (in Israel) they don't call an ambulance to a dying relative or to a minor with serious injury and in pain (with both shoulders dislocated, for example) until the end of Shabbat?
I'm not even Jewish, and I know about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach%20nefesh.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/world/middleeast/israel-m...
While some were dying others continued to dance and celebrate preventing the rescue.
While some were dying others continued to dance and celebrate preventing the rescue.
This is an offensive take on a chaotic stampede where people died. Your linked article even lists the police as trying to stop people from getting out of the way.
>Footage shot as the disaster unfolded showed police officers trying to stop people from fleeing the scene. That could have been because the officers did not immediately realize the extent of the danger, or because they wanted to prevent the stampede from spilling into other areas of the compound.
What it does say is
>Amid the chaos, as medics tried to reach the injured, prominent Israeli rabbis remained onstage, trying to restore calm by reading psalms for the wounded.
your take is wrong and wrongheaded.
>Footage shot as the disaster unfolded showed police officers trying to stop people from fleeing the scene. That could have been because the officers did not immediately realize the extent of the danger, or because they wanted to prevent the stampede from spilling into other areas of the compound.
What it does say is
>Amid the chaos, as medics tried to reach the injured, prominent Israeli rabbis remained onstage, trying to restore calm by reading psalms for the wounded.
your take is wrong and wrongheaded.
That's normal in any large event. People don't understand what is going on or which way they should and shouldn't go. They can also be moved by the tide of people, unable to go any other way, and may be safer where they are. As the article says, police blocked some escape routes. So it goes down to good design, good procedures and matching attendance levels. Something went wrong there.
don't make stuff up, that does not even make sense.
of course one can and should desecrate shabat to save a life
I'm not making things up. My colleague was working as paramedic in those neighborhoods.
By the end of the Shabbat doctor takes a pen and and a bunch of death certificates for people whose relatives won't use the phone during Shabbat. For the evening this is his only job.
By the end of the Shabbat doctor takes a pen and and a bunch of death certificates for people whose relatives won't use the phone during Shabbat. For the evening this is his only job.
You _are_ making it up.
I have many family members who are in the medical profession in Israel. I have been behind the desk on Shabbat in Shaarei Tzedek Hospital (the "Haredi" hospital) that accepts incoming patients.
There is not a single group of Jews that thinks it is admirable to risk a life for Shabbat. The more the religious, the more they value life and quicker break Shabbat.
Do a bit of research in Hatzoloh and Joint Hatzoloh - it is impressive the lengths that volunteers go to, to save a life in Israel (Jewish and Muslim equally). They are active everywhere, and do not get fewer calls from the ultra-Orthodox.
I have many family members who are in the medical profession in Israel. I have been behind the desk on Shabbat in Shaarei Tzedek Hospital (the "Haredi" hospital) that accepts incoming patients.
There is not a single group of Jews that thinks it is admirable to risk a life for Shabbat. The more the religious, the more they value life and quicker break Shabbat.
Do a bit of research in Hatzoloh and Joint Hatzoloh - it is impressive the lengths that volunteers go to, to save a life in Israel (Jewish and Muslim equally). They are active everywhere, and do not get fewer calls from the ultra-Orthodox.
>While in it, I always contemplate other possible strategies the elevator could use to speed up the runtime
Now, should you really be doing that on the Sabbath? What if you actually succeeded in coming up with a really clever algorithm? Would that not have been work?
(And if not - what if you later discover that the elevator company has offered a bounty for exactly such a solution, and you proudly email it in and get your 50 bucks and free t-shirt. Is it now, retroactively, work?)
Now, should you really be doing that on the Sabbath? What if you actually succeeded in coming up with a really clever algorithm? Would that not have been work?
(And if not - what if you later discover that the elevator company has offered a bounty for exactly such a solution, and you proudly email it in and get your 50 bucks and free t-shirt. Is it now, retroactively, work?)
> What if you actually succeeded in coming up with a really clever algorithm? Would that not have been work?
Actually implementing it would of course break Shabbat, but pondering it is fine.
Actually implementing it would of course break Shabbat, but pondering it is fine.
There is a non-Jewish use for this. I remember developing code for a simulated elevator system, and Sabbath mode is an excellent backup mode if you detect that the elevator floor buttons are not working. While it's nowhere near as efficient as properly working mechanisms, it provides reduced functionality instead of being useless.
I think many systems should be designed with reduced functionality modes, and have them automatically enabled when practical. It's often better to have a partially working system than a total failure.
I think many systems should be designed with reduced functionality modes, and have them automatically enabled when practical. It's often better to have a partially working system than a total failure.
Pinball machines are an excellent example of this. They consist of numerous electro-mechanical components that are prone to failures due to repeatedly being hit by a heavy steel ball at high speed. If one of the component breaks, it might take a while for a service technician to get out to some remote bar. To make sure that the machine can continue to collect coins, it modifies its rule-set avoiding broken components. It will also display a little dot in one of the corners of the display to signal that it is in need of repair.
See also the Eruv wire that encircles Manhattan:
> This thread conceptually turns public space into private domain, and allows observers of the Sabbath to carry their essential belongings with them.
https://99percentinvisible.org/article/inside-lines-eruv-wir...
> This thread conceptually turns public space into private domain, and allows observers of the Sabbath to carry their essential belongings with them.
https://99percentinvisible.org/article/inside-lines-eruv-wir...
Holy shit. I knew about eruvin, but I didn't know there was one all the way around Manhattan! How would anybody know if a distant part of the line was down? That would put them in violation, wouldn't it?
Someone checks the eruv every week before Shabbat[1] and they have a weekly announcement if it is operational [2].
[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/05/13/721551785/a-fishing-line-enci... [2] https://twitter.com/ManhattanEruv/status/1388202630048993281
[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/05/13/721551785/a-fishing-line-enci... [2] https://twitter.com/ManhattanEruv/status/1388202630048993281
Why not make it conductive and test if any section is down by seeing that the circuit is broken?
Because the eruv doesn't just consist of one single unbroken wire. It also often includes natural boundaries like rivers, but also other ones like fences, bridges and motorways. Often eruvim (plural of eruv) will be built with an irregular shape specifically so they can take advantage of these; thereby reducing the need for new construction.
Wouldn't that mean operating an electric device?
You could check the connection before the Sabbath, similar to how you check the eruv integrity before the Sabbath. So it'd be fine. It's an interesting idea!
This is a fascinating idea and not something I've ever heard brought up. Do you think the authorities would allow a length of wire with a current passing through it to be erected in their city?
If I recall my electronics/telecommunications classes correctly, you would only need very little current. You could also send short pulses and wait for the "echo" back to have a rough estimate of where the cable is broken.
The biggest issue I see is about the cable length: you would need to use high voltages to make up for the losses and fault location would become way more difficult. Another option would be break up the cable in smaller sections and monitor each of these independently, but I don't know if that's a valid option for this use case since the entire point of the eruv is that it must be continuous (maybe the sections could be tied together using non-conductive materials?)
The biggest issue I see is about the cable length: you would need to use high voltages to make up for the losses and fault location would become way more difficult. Another option would be break up the cable in smaller sections and monitor each of these independently, but I don't know if that's a valid option for this use case since the entire point of the eruv is that it must be continuous (maybe the sections could be tied together using non-conductive materials?)
Aren't there millions of cables throughout Manhattan already, whether to carry power, telephone signals, etc.? The wire could be insulated and low-voltage, you know.
If you're allowed to step on an automatic elevator, you probably also are allowed to look at an LED and take action when it's off.
That’s what I do t get. Just because you’re not pushing the buttons doesn’t mean you’re not operating it... you’re still using it, and the end result is the same. The elevators still probably have safety sensors, so you’re still triggering them when you walk through the doors. What’s the difference between walking though a sensor and pushing a button?
It's like the Sabbath mode on some ovens that let you change the temp, but don't feed back the change to the display panel till after a random delay.
I guess if you add a Rube Goldberg machine to your electronics, it's ok.
My favorite was when I visited some family members that lived in a area with many devout Jewish people. The building they lived in didn't have elevators with a Sabbath mode, and when I entered the elevator, an elderly woman who had been waiting entered with me and mumbled "I live on floor 12". I pressed the button for her, but it was only later that I realized she was waiting for someone to do the work for her without specifically instructing them to do the work because of the day. So odd.
I guess if you add a Rube Goldberg machine to your electronics, it's ok.
My favorite was when I visited some family members that lived in a area with many devout Jewish people. The building they lived in didn't have elevators with a Sabbath mode, and when I entered the elevator, an elderly woman who had been waiting entered with me and mumbled "I live on floor 12". I pressed the button for her, but it was only later that I realized she was waiting for someone to do the work for her without specifically instructing them to do the work because of the day. So odd.
It is inspected weekly before the Sabbath and fixed, or if it can't be, an announcement is made.
[deleted]
I created a service to people can find out if their eruv is up/down http://eruvstat.us
There are also two in San Francisco. I lived inside one for six years and never knew it.
The video linked in the parent post explains that the Manhattan eruv has never been down. A rabbi goes all around on Thursday and repairs are made on Friday if needed. Even when the Thanksgiving parade knocked down some wires or after hurricane Sandy, they managed to get it repaired in time for Shabbat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccfDo7yTHr8
It's absolutely bonkers what some people believe in x)
Anything will sound dumb if you dumb it down enough. In actuality
A) the eruv only works on a specific case. A public domain needs to have a very wide street with 600,000 people who pass through it every day, which places with an eruv don't have. Technically as per biblical law you can carry even without an eruv, it's only as per rabbinic prohibition that you're not allowed to carry unless you have an eruv. In addition
B) the eruv used in most modern communities is the weakest possible form of eruv and not everyone holds by it. My rabbi would only carry in a walled community. Here a great english language article explaining the laws is the following: https://www.halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Introduction_to...
Some people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on maintaining a fishing line around Manhatten. This isn’t “dumbing it down”, it’s just literally the facts of what is going on. Explaining that there are tons more you could dig into about these peoples beliefs around the holy powers of this fishing line and exactly when they do and do not work doesn’t escape the fact that it is dumb.
If someone is wearing a tinfoil hat, his lengthy explanations about the capabilities of American and Russian intelligence agencies capabilities doesn’t make it sound less dumb.
If someone is wearing a tinfoil hat, his lengthy explanations about the capabilities of American and Russian intelligence agencies capabilities doesn’t make it sound less dumb.
While I agree with you that it does seem particularly wasteful and silly, I think you would benefit from some introspection into your own "dumb" culturally-motivated behaviors, or those of "normal" secular society. As just one instance, aren't engagement and weddings rings expensive and dumb by your measure?
> As just one instance, aren't engagement and weddings rings expensive and dumb by your measure?
Yes...? When the time comes I'll not spend money which could otherwise buy several unforgettable vacation trips on a shiny overpriced rock, due to cultural pressure.
Yes...? When the time comes I'll not spend money which could otherwise buy several unforgettable vacation trips on a shiny overpriced rock, due to cultural pressure.
Great, I honestly think that's awesome, but I meant it as more of an illustrative example that we all have cultural biases and we shouldn't be so quick to label others' practices as "dumb" just because we don't understand them or practice them ourselves. If it was actively harming anyone then that would be another ethical rabbit-hole, but it's not as far as I can tell, and it's their money to spend/waste as they please.
Now if we're talking about illegal eruvs (eruvim) such as steel cables or chains at ground-level that have killed motorcyclists in the past...I obviously think that's a good thing...
Now if we're talking about illegal eruvs (eruvim) such as steel cables or chains at ground-level that have killed motorcyclists in the past...I obviously think that's a good thing...
I paid $20 for my wedding ring. My best friend paid almost $1000 for his. You could switch them and nobody would know.
Funny thing is 1000$ is "cheap" for an engagement ring
Well all these convoluted rules and workarounds are “dumb” from an objective point of view, in that there is no objective reason for their existence.
Then again people are free to live by whatever self-imposed rules they desire, as silly as it looks to someone else.
Then again people are free to live by whatever self-imposed rules they desire, as silly as it looks to someone else.
Many aspects of Orthodox Judaism observance focus on halacha, often translated as "ritual law", but probably better described as technical religious practice. This may confuse those who expect religion to be primarily concerned with belief or faith.
As to the curious case of the eruv: The fundamental laws of Sabbath observance are mandated by the Bible, but the specifics of forbidden activities have been refined by rabbinic discussion over hundreds of years. These are documented in the Mishna, the Talmud, and many other sources continuing to the current era. It would be more accurate to view the eruv as a technical way to enclose a shared communal area. This has always been built into the technical determination of domains as set by rabbanic authorities, and functions more as a constant reminder of Sabbath than as a "loophole".
Anyone who observes Shabbat would never confuse it for a regular weekday, even with an eruv and light timers.
As to the curious case of the eruv: The fundamental laws of Sabbath observance are mandated by the Bible, but the specifics of forbidden activities have been refined by rabbinic discussion over hundreds of years. These are documented in the Mishna, the Talmud, and many other sources continuing to the current era. It would be more accurate to view the eruv as a technical way to enclose a shared communal area. This has always been built into the technical determination of domains as set by rabbanic authorities, and functions more as a constant reminder of Sabbath than as a "loophole".
Anyone who observes Shabbat would never confuse it for a regular weekday, even with an eruv and light timers.
Isn’t there some level of faith, small f, required to keep this technical religious practice up? It’s undeniably burdensome, and perhaps a bit silly to the outsider - and goyim culture is not hermetically sealed off, observant Jews know most people live simpler lives. So what keeps them at it, if not faith of some description? I wonder about this in good faith :)
Jews are the original hackers. Our religion has a lot of rules (like a whole lot) and as technology has progressed, the rules have not, so we've had to come up with a lot of workarounds, and also been enabled by technology.
This is one great example. Also a lot of ovens have sabbath mode. So do TVs (although those are just timers for on and off now). The Eruv wire is another Jewish hack.
Alexa has opened up a whole new avenue of hacks. Previously you had to get light switches with random timers if you wanted electric light on Saturday, but now you can make an Alexa routine that is triggered by certain words or motions so that it technically doesn't count as "activating" the switch.
Jews have basically been hacking for 5000 years. :)
This is one great example. Also a lot of ovens have sabbath mode. So do TVs (although those are just timers for on and off now). The Eruv wire is another Jewish hack.
Alexa has opened up a whole new avenue of hacks. Previously you had to get light switches with random timers if you wanted electric light on Saturday, but now you can make an Alexa routine that is triggered by certain words or motions so that it technically doesn't count as "activating" the switch.
Jews have basically been hacking for 5000 years. :)
See also: Amish hackers
https://kk.org/thetechnium/amish-hackers-a/
https://kk.org/thetechnium/amish-hackers-a/
It is something I never understood: why the practice of finding creative ways of getting around laws of the very religion you claim to adhere to is generally accepted in Judaism. While undoubtedly charming, by paying someone to speak the Kaddish for one year instead of yourself, or paying a Shabbes Goy to push buttons on your behalf just outsources your religious duties. Having the elevator stop at every floor even the opposite effect achieved than the spirit of the law intends: more energy is consumed on Shabbes than on other days.
Why not be honest to yourself and admit that you actually don't care so much about the Laws?
Why not be honest to yourself and admit that you actually don't care so much about the Laws?
>Why not be honest to yourself and admit that you actually don't care so much about the Laws?
The the following obviously isn't universal since people have different approaches to their faith, but I would argue the exact opposite. Many people don't do this because they are dishonest or because they don't care about these laws. They do this because they are honest with themselves and they do care about these laws.
Modern society is now setup in such a way as to often give people a choice between living a modern lifestyle or living strictly by laws written thousands of years ago before this life was possible. If presented with the choice between breaking these law and having that lifestyle, people chose to be honest with themselves and adopt that modern lifestyle. However the laws are so important that they must be maintained even if that maintenance now only exists in a symbolic way. That is how you might get people that maintain these seemingly bizarre workarounds. They are able to live a more normal life while constantly reinforcing and reminding themselves of the importance of their religion.
Some believe that this dedication in pleasing God might be just as if not even more important than following some law written thousands of years ago as strictly as possible.
The the following obviously isn't universal since people have different approaches to their faith, but I would argue the exact opposite. Many people don't do this because they are dishonest or because they don't care about these laws. They do this because they are honest with themselves and they do care about these laws.
Modern society is now setup in such a way as to often give people a choice between living a modern lifestyle or living strictly by laws written thousands of years ago before this life was possible. If presented with the choice between breaking these law and having that lifestyle, people chose to be honest with themselves and adopt that modern lifestyle. However the laws are so important that they must be maintained even if that maintenance now only exists in a symbolic way. That is how you might get people that maintain these seemingly bizarre workarounds. They are able to live a more normal life while constantly reinforcing and reminding themselves of the importance of their religion.
Some believe that this dedication in pleasing God might be just as if not even more important than following some law written thousands of years ago as strictly as possible.
It's not about consumption of energy. Shabbat in Judaism is not an energy saving measure, it's a religious ceremony. Judaism is big on doing things differently for a reason (one could probably write a PhD thesis on it) and Shabbat is one of those where the different thing is avoiding making changes in the world. Of course, as with many major religions, everybody finds their own meanings within the framework.
Not making changes in the world?
The make a lot of changes before so they don't have to do them on shabbat. They make actually more changes than without shabbat, and in this case even more environmental damage.
There is a strict and particular set of rules and while "not making changes on the Sabbath" is a useful metaphor, it doesn't perfectly capture the rules or why specific workarounds are permissible and others aren't.
The core set of rules comes from specific actions that were banned in the ancient Tabernacle on the Sabbath. Electricity use is not banned per se on the Sabbath (as electricity was not discovered several thousand years ago); instead, the core law of "do not fix things on the Sabbath" was ruled to ban completing circuits on the Sabbath once electricity became widespread; similarly, "do not break things on the Sabbath" covers breaking a circuit. The rules only cover actions performed by Jews during the Sabbath; they don't cover actions taken on other days even if those actions result in changes on the Sabbath, so for example setting up a timer to turn lights on or off is permissible as long as you set it up prior to the Sabbath. Ditto for these kinds of elevators.
The Sabbath rules have pretty much nothing to do with environmentalism or energy use.
The core set of rules comes from specific actions that were banned in the ancient Tabernacle on the Sabbath. Electricity use is not banned per se on the Sabbath (as electricity was not discovered several thousand years ago); instead, the core law of "do not fix things on the Sabbath" was ruled to ban completing circuits on the Sabbath once electricity became widespread; similarly, "do not break things on the Sabbath" covers breaking a circuit. The rules only cover actions performed by Jews during the Sabbath; they don't cover actions taken on other days even if those actions result in changes on the Sabbath, so for example setting up a timer to turn lights on or off is permissible as long as you set it up prior to the Sabbath. Ditto for these kinds of elevators.
The Sabbath rules have pretty much nothing to do with environmentalism or energy use.
I'm not a religious scholar but these interpretations:
- "do not fix things on the Sabbath" ban[s] completing circuits
- "do not break things on the Sabbath" covers breaking a circuit
sound extremely convoluted to me. A switch's express purpose is to break and complete circuits to direct current. It is part of the object's usage, part of the creator's intent on the object's utility. It has modes of operation where the circuit is broken and complete by design. The saner interpretation of this law IMO would be along the lines of "if a switch got stuck on a Sabbath, good luck on the energy bill, mate".
I have one of those trash cans with a pedal that opens the lid. It is a switch but none of it is electronic. Are Jews not allowed to operate these contraptions on a Sabbath too? It arguably introduces a break in the object, namely the opening for the trash can. Heck, does Jewish law even allow opening trash cans on a Sabbath, at all? By such broad applicability, the only difference between any lidded trash can (a closed object most of the time) and an electric circuit is the presence/absence of current. Can a Jew unlock padlocks on a Sabbath? What about opening doors?
(FINAL NOTE: HN mostly has charged---pun intended---discussions over things we deem ridiculous. Such discussion is NOT my intent here. I know J. Random Netizen like me isn't going to change Jewish culture in two paragraphs. I just wanted to waste actuations of my mechanical keyboard to register my astonishment and confusion over this interpretation.)
- "do not fix things on the Sabbath" ban[s] completing circuits
- "do not break things on the Sabbath" covers breaking a circuit
sound extremely convoluted to me. A switch's express purpose is to break and complete circuits to direct current. It is part of the object's usage, part of the creator's intent on the object's utility. It has modes of operation where the circuit is broken and complete by design. The saner interpretation of this law IMO would be along the lines of "if a switch got stuck on a Sabbath, good luck on the energy bill, mate".
I have one of those trash cans with a pedal that opens the lid. It is a switch but none of it is electronic. Are Jews not allowed to operate these contraptions on a Sabbath too? It arguably introduces a break in the object, namely the opening for the trash can. Heck, does Jewish law even allow opening trash cans on a Sabbath, at all? By such broad applicability, the only difference between any lidded trash can (a closed object most of the time) and an electric circuit is the presence/absence of current. Can a Jew unlock padlocks on a Sabbath? What about opening doors?
(FINAL NOTE: HN mostly has charged---pun intended---discussions over things we deem ridiculous. Such discussion is NOT my intent here. I know J. Random Netizen like me isn't going to change Jewish culture in two paragraphs. I just wanted to waste actuations of my mechanical keyboard to register my astonishment and confusion over this interpretation.)
>sound extremely convoluted to me. A switch's express purpose is to break and complete circuits to direct current. It is part of the object's usage, part of the creator's intent on the object's utility. It has modes of operation where the circuit is broken and complete by design.
This is an excellent point and is a big reason why a lot of rabbis would not give "building" as an answer. Another answer commonly given is that electricity is like fire (made a lot more sense when "electricity" was 99.9% stuff like starting your car with a spark and incandescent lightbulbs) and lighting a fire is prohibited; this doesn't really hold much water anymore. Another reason given is that there's a rabbinic prohibition on "creating", but that doesn't really work because, like you said, all electric appliances are made to be turned off too. Basically electricity on the sabbath is pretty weak as far as prohibitions go and any explanation you hear for why it's banned will always be post-hoc, and the real reason why it's banned is because rabbis are afraid that letting people use electricity will "destroy the spirit of shabbat" (but they can't actually say that's the only reason because it's not strong enough to prohibit it). In fact, on holidays (like passover and the like) the prohibition becomes much, much weaker (to the point where some poskim say that turning on and off LED lights is permitted, among other things.)
This is an excellent point and is a big reason why a lot of rabbis would not give "building" as an answer. Another answer commonly given is that electricity is like fire (made a lot more sense when "electricity" was 99.9% stuff like starting your car with a spark and incandescent lightbulbs) and lighting a fire is prohibited; this doesn't really hold much water anymore. Another reason given is that there's a rabbinic prohibition on "creating", but that doesn't really work because, like you said, all electric appliances are made to be turned off too. Basically electricity on the sabbath is pretty weak as far as prohibitions go and any explanation you hear for why it's banned will always be post-hoc, and the real reason why it's banned is because rabbis are afraid that letting people use electricity will "destroy the spirit of shabbat" (but they can't actually say that's the only reason because it's not strong enough to prohibit it). In fact, on holidays (like passover and the like) the prohibition becomes much, much weaker (to the point where some poskim say that turning on and off LED lights is permitted, among other things.)
The can probably is OK because opening it does not materially change the thing. If it had an attached cover that you had to tear off, would be different business. Padlocks I'd say look ok but then for an observant Jew there wouldn't be too many regular Shabbat activities that require dealing with padlocks. Doors are certainly ok, I've seen observant Jews opening (and closing) doors on Shabbat many times. Of course, if a particular door has e.g. an electronic sensor there might be complications... But again, as an observant Jew you probably wouldn't find yourself in a place with such doors on Shabbat.
But the proper way to address this question is to ask your rabbi of course. If you're an observant Jew, you have one. If he says it's OK then it's OK, if he says it's not then it's not. Sometimes they disagree, and sometimes the disagreement grows big so some strict people for example only eat food that has the Kosher stamp of a specific authority and not the others, and so on.
But the proper way to address this question is to ask your rabbi of course. If you're an observant Jew, you have one. If he says it's OK then it's OK, if he says it's not then it's not. Sometimes they disagree, and sometimes the disagreement grows big so some strict people for example only eat food that has the Kosher stamp of a specific authority and not the others, and so on.
Just want to point out that this argument is not universally accepted by modern halachic (Jewish law) authorities.
Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, a very prominent orthodox Jewish halachist held that closing/opening an electrical circuit does not constitute the biblical prohibition of building and destroying.
Instead, he held that that electricity was prohibited "Rabbinically" for an unrelated reason (which is of a lower degree of severity, which has practical implications).
Notwithstanding this, if one say, turns on an incondescent lightbulb I believe that is biblically prohibited according to all because of the heat it generates.
Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, a very prominent orthodox Jewish halachist held that closing/opening an electrical circuit does not constitute the biblical prohibition of building and destroying.
Instead, he held that that electricity was prohibited "Rabbinically" for an unrelated reason (which is of a lower degree of severity, which has practical implications).
Notwithstanding this, if one say, turns on an incondescent lightbulb I believe that is biblically prohibited according to all because of the heat it generates.
Can you make a switch Kosher by putting 1M ohm resistor across it. Then the circuit would never be broken just modified. Electric Eruvin? (Consult your local Rabbi)
I think that was done to touch-tone telephones in Israel many years ago when we still used land lines.
There is an organization in Israel, Tzomet, dedicated to these kind of stuff. I believe they manufacture such products.
But they're explicitly dedicated for times of need and not for leisure purposes.
But they're explicitly dedicated for times of need and not for leisure purposes.
"Sabbath mode" ovens work in a clever way, where the temperature switch is only checked on a certain interval. So when you change the temperature you're generally not completing or breaking a circuit, since the circuit is likely currently broken anyway.
Most rabbinic authorities still prohibit Sabbath mode ovens on Shabbat for different reasons, but on holidays with weaker restrictions but that still have electricity bans, like Passover, permit their use.
I remember when my parents first got a "Sabbath mode" oven, the local Orthodox rabbi came over excitedly just to see it at work.
Most rabbinic authorities still prohibit Sabbath mode ovens on Shabbat for different reasons, but on holidays with weaker restrictions but that still have electricity bans, like Passover, permit their use.
I remember when my parents first got a "Sabbath mode" oven, the local Orthodox rabbi came over excitedly just to see it at work.
I'm not sure what is your point. Nobody is trying to convince you to follow Judaism. In fact, it is customary to strongly discourage anybody who wants to convert. If it doesn't make sense to you, it's ok, it's not supposed to. I'm just trying to explain how those who follow it see it. If you're not interested, well, you're welcome to not being educated.
I would phrase the Shabbat prohibitions as "creative work", modeled after the days of creation and the creative labor of building the Tabernacle. The 39 general categories of labor have been documented for millennia, and are applied as the archetypes for technical usage in the modern world.
If you believe that the laws are the literal word of God, it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch to argue that God would've worded it differently if the loopholes weren't meant to be there.
The laws aren't the literal word of God though, because a lot of them come from the rabbis. The problem is that we don't have the rabbinic authority to overturn laws that don't apply anymore, so we're stuck with what we have a little bit.
we don't have the rabbinic authority
As a former LDS/Mormon (now effectively humanist/atheist), this concept of authority is pretty interesting. One of our core lessons when I was a missionary was that God's authority was lost from the Earth, and had to be restored by a new line of prophets. Some of my fellow missionaries enjoyed discussing this with messianic Jews in the area, sharing interpretations back and forth.
So in Judaism, are there tiers of rulemaking authority? Could a rabbi override a previous rabbi, but not a prophet?
As a former LDS/Mormon (now effectively humanist/atheist), this concept of authority is pretty interesting. One of our core lessons when I was a missionary was that God's authority was lost from the Earth, and had to be restored by a new line of prophets. Some of my fellow missionaries enjoyed discussing this with messianic Jews in the area, sharing interpretations back and forth.
So in Judaism, are there tiers of rulemaking authority? Could a rabbi override a previous rabbi, but not a prophet?
The important bit is that an individual rabbi cannot overturn anything; the power comes from a legislative entity called "The Sanhedrin". However, in order to be part of the sanhedrin you need to be ordained by another member of the sanhedrin and at some point (unknown exactly when, possibly around the year 400) this lineage was lost. The idea of overturning a prophet doesn't really matter though, because as far as I know we don't get laws from the prophets (except Moses obviously).
I'm from Israel, and while I don't personally abide by any religious rules, I do come into contact with people who do and have an idea: it is important to understand that most people do not follow these rules as a functional method to achieve some goal. For example, it's not like they're actively thinking "oh if I press this button on Sabbath then I'll go to hell, and I wanna go to heaven so I won't".
Instead, they're following these rules as a social decree. In their circles, it is the obvious and accepted thing to do to follow these rules, which the community's leading Rabbi sets (or well, gives guidelines which are socially considered binding). If you don't follow the rules, then you're a weird one, and religious communities tend not to be accepting of the different, so they will shun you for turning on the light on Sabbath (if you keep doing it..)
So for one born into a religious community, you're taught to do so and there is a strong social incentive to do so: if you don't, you're first branded an odd one, and in some cases shunned, depending on how severe your straying off the path is. If you were told that were you to use the elevator normally, your parents would be very upset with you and may stop talking to you altogether, you'd think about it twice, even if you don't personally feel that you want to follow Judaism.
Finally, the religious authorities have a power incentive to do this: by setting rules and maintaining their position as the authorities who set rules, they keep a lot of power over a large number of people. Often this even manifests financially, as a respected religious authority can give Kosher certificates (and many products which are not food, like phones, can also be Kosher) - of course, the certification costs money, just like a SOC2 audit. Same goes for Sabbath certified electric devices - someone gave their stamp of approval, and the developer paid for it.
So to summarize - religious authorities enjoy power and money by being those who set the rules, everyday people have a strong social incentive to follow the rules as breaking them is taboo.
I think about it like following requirements set by certain certifications. Not all requirements make sense in every context - sometimes you may feel silly complying, knowing you're doing it just to check a box, even though there's no practical value to it.
But there is a value to passing the audit and getting the certificate saying you comply from EY or whoever, so you abide by the requirements, even when they don't make sense, so you can show your ~Kosher~ ISO certificate when you need to.
I'd like to point out that this isn't all there is to it - there are very obviously other incentives to do things this way (e.g. personal belief), but I'm just trying to make an analogy with terms from the HNer's day to day to show why you might follow religious rules even if you're (say) a teenager who doesn't care one bit.
Instead, they're following these rules as a social decree. In their circles, it is the obvious and accepted thing to do to follow these rules, which the community's leading Rabbi sets (or well, gives guidelines which are socially considered binding). If you don't follow the rules, then you're a weird one, and religious communities tend not to be accepting of the different, so they will shun you for turning on the light on Sabbath (if you keep doing it..)
So for one born into a religious community, you're taught to do so and there is a strong social incentive to do so: if you don't, you're first branded an odd one, and in some cases shunned, depending on how severe your straying off the path is. If you were told that were you to use the elevator normally, your parents would be very upset with you and may stop talking to you altogether, you'd think about it twice, even if you don't personally feel that you want to follow Judaism.
Finally, the religious authorities have a power incentive to do this: by setting rules and maintaining their position as the authorities who set rules, they keep a lot of power over a large number of people. Often this even manifests financially, as a respected religious authority can give Kosher certificates (and many products which are not food, like phones, can also be Kosher) - of course, the certification costs money, just like a SOC2 audit. Same goes for Sabbath certified electric devices - someone gave their stamp of approval, and the developer paid for it.
So to summarize - religious authorities enjoy power and money by being those who set the rules, everyday people have a strong social incentive to follow the rules as breaking them is taboo.
I think about it like following requirements set by certain certifications. Not all requirements make sense in every context - sometimes you may feel silly complying, knowing you're doing it just to check a box, even though there's no practical value to it.
But there is a value to passing the audit and getting the certificate saying you comply from EY or whoever, so you abide by the requirements, even when they don't make sense, so you can show your ~Kosher~ ISO certificate when you need to.
I'd like to point out that this isn't all there is to it - there are very obviously other incentives to do things this way (e.g. personal belief), but I'm just trying to make an analogy with terms from the HNer's day to day to show why you might follow religious rules even if you're (say) a teenager who doesn't care one bit.
tovmeod(1)
I think this is a bit of an overstatement. In my experience — I'm an athiest who doesn't follow any particular religious rules either, but I was raised Orthodox Jewish — most Orthodox Jews do truly believe in God, and believe that at some level they'll be punished for breaking the rules and rewarded for following them. It's true that teenagers who haven't yet left home might be going through the motions cynically — when I was in high school, I was — but that's generally not true of adults: if you don't believe, when you leave home (either for college in the US, or army in Israel), it's fairly easy to "fall off the derech" and stop practicing now that you're free to find your own community. That might not be true in some of the ultra-Orthodox communities in Israel that are exempt from army service, or the Yiddish-speaking communities in America where there's a language barrier preventing you from interacting with the rest of the world, but for most religious Jews there's a pretty strong element of true belief. Religious Jews are a pretty tiny minority in the world; if you don't believe, it's pretty easy to find something else to believe in or to have a community around.
> I think about it like following requirements set by certain certifications. Not all requirements make sense in every context - sometimes you may feel silly complying, knowing you're doing it just to check a box, even though there's no practical value to it. But there is a value to passing the audit and getting the certificate saying you comply from EY or whoever, so you abide by the requirements, even when they don't make sense, so you can show your ~Kosher~ ISO certificate when you need to.
In general there are a huge swaths of rules in Judaism that are expected even within Orthodox Judaism to serve no practical purpose, other than simply God (supposedly) said to follow them. If you believe that God said you can eat a goose, but you cannot eat a stork, why is it any more ridiculous to believe God said you must not light a fire on Shabbat? It's all kind of silly unless you believe in the fundamental premise that these are rules from God, in which case none of it is silly. In the Orthodox communities I was raised in, the idea of a checkbox that you feel silly complying with didn't really exist: either you believed in the premise that God really wanted you to check those checkboxes, or you didn't, at which point why were you not eating shellfish or driving on Shabbat?
There are social norms too, of course. But at least for religious adults, in my experience it's mostly uncynical.
> I think about it like following requirements set by certain certifications. Not all requirements make sense in every context - sometimes you may feel silly complying, knowing you're doing it just to check a box, even though there's no practical value to it. But there is a value to passing the audit and getting the certificate saying you comply from EY or whoever, so you abide by the requirements, even when they don't make sense, so you can show your ~Kosher~ ISO certificate when you need to.
In general there are a huge swaths of rules in Judaism that are expected even within Orthodox Judaism to serve no practical purpose, other than simply God (supposedly) said to follow them. If you believe that God said you can eat a goose, but you cannot eat a stork, why is it any more ridiculous to believe God said you must not light a fire on Shabbat? It's all kind of silly unless you believe in the fundamental premise that these are rules from God, in which case none of it is silly. In the Orthodox communities I was raised in, the idea of a checkbox that you feel silly complying with didn't really exist: either you believed in the premise that God really wanted you to check those checkboxes, or you didn't, at which point why were you not eating shellfish or driving on Shabbat?
There are social norms too, of course. But at least for religious adults, in my experience it's mostly uncynical.
Yes indeed, it is multifaceted and there are many reasons any one person is following the rules. But I was trying to give a plausible explanation for why one might do so, even if it doesn't make strict sense to them to use a Shabbat mode elevator (the user I was replying to asked how does this make any sense, if you're trying to avoid labor during Sabbath), further outlining the idea that there are incentives other than belief that God said so.
In the case of the Sabbath elevator, obviously it was not mentioned explicitly in the Bible, so it's what the Rabbi thinks. So why believe the Rabbi when the logic doesn't seem to be 100% there? I think the reason is there is massive social incentive to comply instead of asking questions about such widely accepted ideas.
It does seem you're speaking from more personal experience than mine, so I defer to you, but I'd like to reiterate that I'm just trying to provide a plausible explanation for why one who doesn't have such a strong belief might still end up doing it (the hypothetical person in the post of the poster I was replying to who's asking themselves why a Sabbath elevator makes sense), but I'm not trying to say that's all there is to it. People who don't question it in the first place because their thought process is that the Halacha is telling them what God meant and thus they are merely following God's instructions don't question whether a Shabbat elevator makes sense in the first place.
In the case of the Sabbath elevator, obviously it was not mentioned explicitly in the Bible, so it's what the Rabbi thinks. So why believe the Rabbi when the logic doesn't seem to be 100% there? I think the reason is there is massive social incentive to comply instead of asking questions about such widely accepted ideas.
It does seem you're speaking from more personal experience than mine, so I defer to you, but I'd like to reiterate that I'm just trying to provide a plausible explanation for why one who doesn't have such a strong belief might still end up doing it (the hypothetical person in the post of the poster I was replying to who's asking themselves why a Sabbath elevator makes sense), but I'm not trying to say that's all there is to it. People who don't question it in the first place because their thought process is that the Halacha is telling them what God meant and thus they are merely following God's instructions don't question whether a Shabbat elevator makes sense in the first place.
You're not "getting around the laws" you're following the laws.
Where do you get the idea that the spirit of the law is not to consume more energy? Is this something you've studied?
Why not be honest to yourself and admit you've literally no idea what the laws are?
Why not be honest to yourself and admit you've literally no idea what the laws are?
In my opinion the extreme following of rules that were made up thousands of years ago without considering their relevance on the modern world is stupid. And then coming up with these "hacks" to break the rules by over complicating things is even worse. If you want light, just press the button, if you really really strongly believe that should not be allowed then don't use light...
I think religion brings many good things to the world, guides people and gives them something to hold on to in difficult times. But the super strict following of rules that someone interprets out of a book that was written thousands of years ago is not one of the good things. And to be sure: for me that applies the same to all religions, this article is about Jewish hacks but there are also Christian and Muslim rules that make no sense now centuries later.
I think religion brings many good things to the world, guides people and gives them something to hold on to in difficult times. But the super strict following of rules that someone interprets out of a book that was written thousands of years ago is not one of the good things. And to be sure: for me that applies the same to all religions, this article is about Jewish hacks but there are also Christian and Muslim rules that make no sense now centuries later.
In my opinion (not a Jew) the good in religion cannot be boiled down to its moral guidance nor its stabilizing effects. Religion is not therapy and is not a replacement for therapy either.
Following a set of rules, even arbitrary rules, can be a part of a tradition. For example, one of the rules that my family follows is putting up a Christmas tree around the beginning of December and decorating it. This is work, in some sense "stupid" and "irrelevant" work: my hands have gone numb while trying to cut with a handheld saw at the base of at tree before. The needles make a mess everywhere. Cutting down trees is probably not great for the environment. But, if my (American, Protestant) culture weren't so hellbent on seeing religion a matter of individual belief, we'd probably recognize that this is a religious practice. It's a unique set of weird things we do that sets us apart and brings us together.
Other practices seem connected to holding a sense of wonder for the world we live in. My experience with Sabbath-remembrance is that it is an attempt to commemorate life itself (as a creative act) by choosing to rest (not creating) on that day. (I can't speak for Jews, my background was Christian.) As someone who's now a religious "none/other", I think there's something still work respecting in these practices, even if they sometimes seem badly aligned with the modern fast-moving world.
Following a set of rules, even arbitrary rules, can be a part of a tradition. For example, one of the rules that my family follows is putting up a Christmas tree around the beginning of December and decorating it. This is work, in some sense "stupid" and "irrelevant" work: my hands have gone numb while trying to cut with a handheld saw at the base of at tree before. The needles make a mess everywhere. Cutting down trees is probably not great for the environment. But, if my (American, Protestant) culture weren't so hellbent on seeing religion a matter of individual belief, we'd probably recognize that this is a religious practice. It's a unique set of weird things we do that sets us apart and brings us together.
Other practices seem connected to holding a sense of wonder for the world we live in. My experience with Sabbath-remembrance is that it is an attempt to commemorate life itself (as a creative act) by choosing to rest (not creating) on that day. (I can't speak for Jews, my background was Christian.) As someone who's now a religious "none/other", I think there's something still work respecting in these practices, even if they sometimes seem badly aligned with the modern fast-moving world.
A Christmas tree has aesthetic value, and the decorated tree brings cheer in a time of year where darkness, cold, and late fall, early winter gloom affects many people. This tradition has so many redeeming factors, that it is embraced by religious and non-religious people alike.
Following a set of arbitrary rules can create tradition and community, and if these are harmless this is fine, but this example of finding workarounds for your own religion comes across as keeping up appearances for others who subscribe to it; not actual religious adherence. I mean, most gods I've read about don't look to kindly on interpreting their principles to the letter (“Look! I'm not touching the switch, but if I say ‘Alexa, I feel gloomy’ the light comes just happens to come on!”) rather than to the spirit.
Following a set of arbitrary rules can create tradition and community, and if these are harmless this is fine, but this example of finding workarounds for your own religion comes across as keeping up appearances for others who subscribe to it; not actual religious adherence. I mean, most gods I've read about don't look to kindly on interpreting their principles to the letter (“Look! I'm not touching the switch, but if I say ‘Alexa, I feel gloomy’ the light comes just happens to come on!”) rather than to the spirit.
> I mean, most gods I've read about don't look to kindly on interpreting their principles to the letter ... rather than to the spirit.
"Israel" is literally defined in Genesis to mean "the one who strives with God", so this kind of argumentative approach to one's own religion might not be approved by "most gods", but that doesn't mean it can't be part of some religions. I would also note that some Jews who have replied to this thread have indicated that they do endeavor to follow both the letter and spirit of the law.
"Israel" is literally defined in Genesis to mean "the one who strives with God", so this kind of argumentative approach to one's own religion might not be approved by "most gods", but that doesn't mean it can't be part of some religions. I would also note that some Jews who have replied to this thread have indicated that they do endeavor to follow both the letter and spirit of the law.
We sometimes do this, sometimes don't, and if we do, it's not because of our own cultural traditions. We're doing, as sibling post pointed out, for aesthetic reasons.
I follow these "archaic" rules myself, although I have a very different approach to these "hacks". Orthodox Judaism has an explicit prohibition of using loopholes to circumvent the spirit of the law called "Ha'aramah" mentioned in various plances throughout the Talmud including: Moed Katan
11b,12b, Nedarim 43a, 48a; Bava Metziah 62b and a bunch more I do not recall.
I have always understood there to be two classes of hacks in Judaism.
The impermissible class circumvents the spirit of the law.
The permissable class clarifies what the spirit of the law actually is.
The spirit of the Shabbat law is to rest and resting is defined as refraining from a set of 39 categories of labor. One of these categories is transferring an object from one domain to another. But is it really labor to carry a cake to a friends house as a gift when attending a meal? Is it labor to push a child around in a stroller?
The loophole of Eruv is intended to enable Jews to define communities by drawing a string around them and demarcate a logical line of what constitutes labor vs not on Shabbat as a something external to the community vs external to the home. This is a psychological exercise to force Jews to understand the boundaries of their communities so as to protect them from actually performing labor and preserving the sanctity of Shabbat.
I have always understood there to be two classes of hacks in Judaism.
The impermissible class circumvents the spirit of the law.
The permissable class clarifies what the spirit of the law actually is.
The spirit of the Shabbat law is to rest and resting is defined as refraining from a set of 39 categories of labor. One of these categories is transferring an object from one domain to another. But is it really labor to carry a cake to a friends house as a gift when attending a meal? Is it labor to push a child around in a stroller?
The loophole of Eruv is intended to enable Jews to define communities by drawing a string around them and demarcate a logical line of what constitutes labor vs not on Shabbat as a something external to the community vs external to the home. This is a psychological exercise to force Jews to understand the boundaries of their communities so as to protect them from actually performing labor and preserving the sanctity of Shabbat.
The point is not light or no-light, push the button or don’t push the button.
The point is to sculpt the life of the practitioner—so that we remember God and His creative presence in our lives in all that we do. Extra work beforehand, moving effort around to clear the Sabbath, then having a weird day on the Sabbath, is a great way of doing that. Acting as a family on the Sabbath doesn’t hurt either!
The orthodox all seem to feel an obligation like that of lay brothers in Christianity. Even there: God is eternal, so prayer cannot change Him. Why pray? It changes us. Why pray unceasingly? For unceasing change.
In most societies, we leave most people at the default shape of life and set apart those who want to sculpt their living of their life. Orthodox Judaism asks that level of commitment of all its members, and so has persisted for a couple hundred years with less change than most.
The point is to sculpt the life of the practitioner—so that we remember God and His creative presence in our lives in all that we do. Extra work beforehand, moving effort around to clear the Sabbath, then having a weird day on the Sabbath, is a great way of doing that. Acting as a family on the Sabbath doesn’t hurt either!
The orthodox all seem to feel an obligation like that of lay brothers in Christianity. Even there: God is eternal, so prayer cannot change Him. Why pray? It changes us. Why pray unceasingly? For unceasing change.
In most societies, we leave most people at the default shape of life and set apart those who want to sculpt their living of their life. Orthodox Judaism asks that level of commitment of all its members, and so has persisted for a couple hundred years with less change than most.
If the point is just to show a commitment from the members, why not choose a method of showing commitment that doesn't create so much unnecessary waste? Like Lent or Ramadan, or simply meditating or something, rather than having elevators and ovens run for 24 hours extra?
I'll tell you in one word. Tradition![1]
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWSoYCetG6A
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWSoYCetG6A
Agreed - these kinds of things are a decent example of the dumber parts of religion.
It’s also odd to me that violating the spirit of the rules via technicalities is considered morally acceptable in that context (and yes, like any religion there are twisted rationalizations about why it all makes perfect sense).
It’s also odd to me that violating the spirit of the rules via technicalities is considered morally acceptable in that context (and yes, like any religion there are twisted rationalizations about why it all makes perfect sense).
Maybe some of the details of sabbath keeping is amusing to see, but I think a day of rest has even more relevance to modern society.
Hell, in ancient times they even had land Sabbaths.
Not that it’s all feasible but can you imagine how better off oceans and lands would be if they could be given even a year’s break on a seven year cycle?
Hell, in ancient times they even had land Sabbaths.
Not that it’s all feasible but can you imagine how better off oceans and lands would be if they could be given even a year’s break on a seven year cycle?
There are also light switch hacks that allow to turn on/off the light without actually interrupting or creating an electrical circuit (e.g. there's a photo-sensitive relay which checks at random intervals if the path of light is blocked, and then switches the circuit, but since blocking the path of the future light does not do anything right now, it may not be a violation). While the religious permissibility of those are still questionable, one has to admire the ingenuity. Not sure about Alexa things, would be interesting to check what rabbis think about the always-on devices on Shabbat...
The simplest hack I've seen was pre-torn toilet paper - while tearing stuff is not permitted on Shabbat, the needs of your body do not cease, so one has to prepare :)
The simplest hack I've seen was pre-torn toilet paper - while tearing stuff is not permitted on Shabbat, the needs of your body do not cease, so one has to prepare :)
But literally all of those hacks feel like playing some stupid game with God. Like, if God is a truly omnipotent and all knowing, why would he/she care that you're tearing toilet paper on Shabbat or flipping a light switch. Equally, if you assume that this all powerful God really cares about this stuff, why would you assume they can be "tricked" by those hacks? Is the God all powerful and all knowing? Or literally so stupid that you can defeat the sacred logic with some simple hacks? Like the Eruv wire that wraps around Manhattan - do religious people honestly think that this "trick" works, in a spiritual sense? That they go to have their eternal judgement dispensed and God goes "yep, well done, you tricked me, I never specified the maximum diameter of the wire, and clearly you humans are too stupid to read context/intention in 'do no work' so yeah, it's all good, I have to let this one slide".
There's no reason to follow the internal logic of a religion when trying to understand its workings. With Sabbath, observe how the rabbis decide on how to apply the rules. They know that their task is to keep the society functional, even if they use religious language to express it.
One basic reason a community will have some arbitrary rules: They make it expensive to be part of the community. They make it harder to fake adherence and profit from the group. All members of the community understand this intuitively even if they can't express it. So they welcome what looks like silly rules to the outsider.
One basic reason a community will have some arbitrary rules: They make it expensive to be part of the community. They make it harder to fake adherence and profit from the group. All members of the community understand this intuitively even if they can't express it. So they welcome what looks like silly rules to the outsider.
[deleted]
I'm not religious anymore, but none of this strikes me as particularly compelling. I can take up the part of the theist here.
>Like, if God is a truly omnipotent and all knowing, why would he/she care that you're tearing toilet paper on Shabbat or flipping a light switch.
Because god prohibited these things.
>Equally, if you assume that this all powerful God really cares about this stuff, why would you assume they can be "tricked" by those hacks?
Because they permitted doing it that way.
>Is the God all powerful and all knowing? Or literally so stupid that you can defeat the sacred logic with some simple hacks?
God is all powerful and all knowing and the things they prohibited are prohibited and the things they didn't aren't.
>Like the Eruv wire that wraps around Manhattan - do religious people honestly think that this "trick" works, in a spiritual sense?
Loaded question, but short answer is yes. I think you should read this article (https://www.halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Introduction_to...). The eruv is to get around a rabbinic prohibition, not a divine one. It's also not accepted by everyone as a valid technicality; my rabbi would carry in nothing less than a walled city.
>That they go to have their eternal judgement dispensed and God goes "yep, well done, you tricked me, I never specified the maximum diameter of the wire, and clearly you humans are too stupid to read context/intention in 'do no work' so yeah, it's all good, I have to let this one slide".
No you go to your eternal judgement and god goes "good job you never violated any of my commandments".
>Like, if God is a truly omnipotent and all knowing, why would he/she care that you're tearing toilet paper on Shabbat or flipping a light switch.
Because god prohibited these things.
>Equally, if you assume that this all powerful God really cares about this stuff, why would you assume they can be "tricked" by those hacks?
Because they permitted doing it that way.
>Is the God all powerful and all knowing? Or literally so stupid that you can defeat the sacred logic with some simple hacks?
God is all powerful and all knowing and the things they prohibited are prohibited and the things they didn't aren't.
>Like the Eruv wire that wraps around Manhattan - do religious people honestly think that this "trick" works, in a spiritual sense?
Loaded question, but short answer is yes. I think you should read this article (https://www.halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Introduction_to...). The eruv is to get around a rabbinic prohibition, not a divine one. It's also not accepted by everyone as a valid technicality; my rabbi would carry in nothing less than a walled city.
>That they go to have their eternal judgement dispensed and God goes "yep, well done, you tricked me, I never specified the maximum diameter of the wire, and clearly you humans are too stupid to read context/intention in 'do no work' so yeah, it's all good, I have to let this one slide".
No you go to your eternal judgement and god goes "good job you never violated any of my commandments".
Right, some good arguments here. If you don't mind, to continue the discussion a bit further:
>>Because god prohibited these things.
But God didn't, at least not explicitly. The specific instruction is to "do no work on Shabbat". The interpretation is human. I think(and of course Rabbis disagree) that interpreting "flipping the light switch" as work is NOT what God meant, it feels almost like an insult to intelligence to interpret it this way. There is an intention behind it, and I think the intention is more important than trying to be as literal as physically possible. After all doing literally anything is "work" in the sense that there is physical activity happening, you are burning oxygen just breathing, walking creates sound and talking moves the air about - it's all "work" in the physical sense. Why is flipping a switch special? I know the answer to this - because religious authorities have decided that's the case.
But that loops back to the original point - God didn't decide this. Rabbis did.
It's like Muslims are prohibited from consuming alcohol and if we accept that this is a divine restriction, we can still discuss what it actually means for us humans. Some interpretatioms say that Muslims shouldn't drink alcohol because the intention here is to prevent inebriation. But cooking with alcohol is fine because it doesn't lead to inebriation. Some other teachings say that all alcohol is bad. Those teachings conveniently ignore that alcohol is in everything(your average loaf of bread contains up to 2% alcohol by volume, purely due to yeast fermentation), but dogma is more important than reality.
So yes, I think I stand by what I said initially - all of this feels like a game, with some really crazy rules. Play according to the rules and you get eternal salvation. Don't question the rules.
>>Because god prohibited these things.
But God didn't, at least not explicitly. The specific instruction is to "do no work on Shabbat". The interpretation is human. I think(and of course Rabbis disagree) that interpreting "flipping the light switch" as work is NOT what God meant, it feels almost like an insult to intelligence to interpret it this way. There is an intention behind it, and I think the intention is more important than trying to be as literal as physically possible. After all doing literally anything is "work" in the sense that there is physical activity happening, you are burning oxygen just breathing, walking creates sound and talking moves the air about - it's all "work" in the physical sense. Why is flipping a switch special? I know the answer to this - because religious authorities have decided that's the case.
But that loops back to the original point - God didn't decide this. Rabbis did.
It's like Muslims are prohibited from consuming alcohol and if we accept that this is a divine restriction, we can still discuss what it actually means for us humans. Some interpretatioms say that Muslims shouldn't drink alcohol because the intention here is to prevent inebriation. But cooking with alcohol is fine because it doesn't lead to inebriation. Some other teachings say that all alcohol is bad. Those teachings conveniently ignore that alcohol is in everything(your average loaf of bread contains up to 2% alcohol by volume, purely due to yeast fermentation), but dogma is more important than reality.
So yes, I think I stand by what I said initially - all of this feels like a game, with some really crazy rules. Play according to the rules and you get eternal salvation. Don't question the rules.
>The specific instruction is to "do no work on Shabbat". The interpretation is human.
This is a good point, but I think orthodox judaism wouldn't say that the interpretation is human. In orthodox judaism, the interpretation of biblical commandments is usually assumed to be oral tradition from god. There are also rabbinic decrees, but these are generally treated with something approximating the force of a biblical command because there's also a biblical command to follow the rulings of the rabbis.
>I think(and of course Rabbis disagree) that interpreting "flipping the light switch" as work is NOT what God meant, it feels almost like an insult to intelligence to interpret it this way. There is an intention behind it, and I think the intention is more important than trying to be as literal as physically possible.
This is speaking like you're not obligated to fulfill the commandments. That's axiom one. Once we have that down, the obvious next question is "what are the commandments." Asking "what is the spirit of the commandments and when can I violate them" is wrong because the answer in orthodox judaism is that you can never violate them. You can make an orthodox argument that electricity should be allowed, the prohibition is definitely rather unbased in actual law imo. But that wouldn't be because it's ok in the spirit of the law, it would be because the law permits it.
>So yes, I think I stand by what I said initially - all of this feels like a game, with some really crazy rules. Play according to the rules and you get eternal salvation. Don't question the rules.
I think I can agree with this. Most of the rules do in fact feel like dumb contrived bullshit. If you actually look at the categories for work on the sabbath it's very clearly stuff that a worker in the BCEs would think is work; lighting fires, doing planting and harvesting, carrying stuff, weaving, making bread, it's all very strange and disjointed from modern reality. And this is supposedly divine decree too, so it's not even the work of ancient rabbis, supposedly.
This is a good point, but I think orthodox judaism wouldn't say that the interpretation is human. In orthodox judaism, the interpretation of biblical commandments is usually assumed to be oral tradition from god. There are also rabbinic decrees, but these are generally treated with something approximating the force of a biblical command because there's also a biblical command to follow the rulings of the rabbis.
>I think(and of course Rabbis disagree) that interpreting "flipping the light switch" as work is NOT what God meant, it feels almost like an insult to intelligence to interpret it this way. There is an intention behind it, and I think the intention is more important than trying to be as literal as physically possible.
This is speaking like you're not obligated to fulfill the commandments. That's axiom one. Once we have that down, the obvious next question is "what are the commandments." Asking "what is the spirit of the commandments and when can I violate them" is wrong because the answer in orthodox judaism is that you can never violate them. You can make an orthodox argument that electricity should be allowed, the prohibition is definitely rather unbased in actual law imo. But that wouldn't be because it's ok in the spirit of the law, it would be because the law permits it.
>So yes, I think I stand by what I said initially - all of this feels like a game, with some really crazy rules. Play according to the rules and you get eternal salvation. Don't question the rules.
I think I can agree with this. Most of the rules do in fact feel like dumb contrived bullshit. If you actually look at the categories for work on the sabbath it's very clearly stuff that a worker in the BCEs would think is work; lighting fires, doing planting and harvesting, carrying stuff, weaving, making bread, it's all very strange and disjointed from modern reality. And this is supposedly divine decree too, so it's not even the work of ancient rabbis, supposedly.
> I think(and of course Rabbis disagree) that interpreting "flipping the light switch" as work is NOT what God meant
It's amazing that people can just come out and say "I know what the God meant, while people who lived this tradition for thousands of years, carried it over several continents and kept it alive through wars, plagues, genocides, raise and ruin of empires - they all don't know what they're talking about". It certainly is gutsy.
The thing is, there's only two ways to know things, in general. One is experience it yourself - in this case, you go to God, ask Him (or Her, or Them, whatever works for you) what is the meaning of that, get an answer and live the rest of your life according to it (or ignore it if you like, your choice, free will and stuff). Another is trust the relevant authorities - and in this case, those are the rabbis. If you are interested in Judaic tradition, then there's no Judaic tradition outside the rabbis. Of course, inside there's a lot of variety, but if you discard the rabbis, then you've got no Judaism. Whatever is left is not based on Judaic tradition anymore, and then one would have to ask - what exactly is it based on? Why would you believe anything in those texts at all or put any importance into it? Of course, you don't have to - but then the question of what's the right thing to do on Shabbat is moot - you do whatever you like (well, excluding the obvious things like murdering people etc.) and it's fine.
It's amazing that people can just come out and say "I know what the God meant, while people who lived this tradition for thousands of years, carried it over several continents and kept it alive through wars, plagues, genocides, raise and ruin of empires - they all don't know what they're talking about". It certainly is gutsy.
The thing is, there's only two ways to know things, in general. One is experience it yourself - in this case, you go to God, ask Him (or Her, or Them, whatever works for you) what is the meaning of that, get an answer and live the rest of your life according to it (or ignore it if you like, your choice, free will and stuff). Another is trust the relevant authorities - and in this case, those are the rabbis. If you are interested in Judaic tradition, then there's no Judaic tradition outside the rabbis. Of course, inside there's a lot of variety, but if you discard the rabbis, then you've got no Judaism. Whatever is left is not based on Judaic tradition anymore, and then one would have to ask - what exactly is it based on? Why would you believe anything in those texts at all or put any importance into it? Of course, you don't have to - but then the question of what's the right thing to do on Shabbat is moot - you do whatever you like (well, excluding the obvious things like murdering people etc.) and it's fine.
>>It's amazing that people can just come out and say "I know what the God meant, while people who lived this tradition for thousands of years, carried it over several continents and kept it alive through wars, plagues, genocides, raise and ruin of empires - they all don't know what they're talking about". It certainly is gutsy.
I'm just amazed that all of the thousands of years of experience, of wars famines struggle, of tradition of practice of worship of deep religious study was required to come up with a conclusion that somehow flipping a light switch is work. I'm not saying I know better, after all I'm not a follower of this religion, but this article was very specifically about a way to avoid pressing buttons because once again, all of those thousands of years of tradition decided that pressing buttons is work. Ok, cool, I'd like to point out that it doesn't make any sense to me. But then I forgot that religion doesn't have to make any sense to exist.
I'm just amazed that all of the thousands of years of experience, of wars famines struggle, of tradition of practice of worship of deep religious study was required to come up with a conclusion that somehow flipping a light switch is work. I'm not saying I know better, after all I'm not a follower of this religion, but this article was very specifically about a way to avoid pressing buttons because once again, all of those thousands of years of tradition decided that pressing buttons is work. Ok, cool, I'd like to point out that it doesn't make any sense to me. But then I forgot that religion doesn't have to make any sense to exist.
It's not "work" in the meaning you understand work. You're reading a fourth or fifth party translation of the actual tradition, with the terminology dumbed down to the level that makes it accessible to the layman. It's like reading quantum mechanics book and laughing about how stupid those physicists are thinking quarks have colors and flavors. I mean, do they really imagine they could taste a quark? Surely doesn't make any sense!
> I'd like to point out that it doesn't make any sense to me
It wouldn't. At least until you actually learn the framework and understand the terminology and the rules of it. And it's not supposed to make sense you you anyway - it's not made for you.
> I'd like to point out that it doesn't make any sense to me
It wouldn't. At least until you actually learn the framework and understand the terminology and the rules of it. And it's not supposed to make sense you you anyway - it's not made for you.
Fair enough.
> if you assume that this all powerful God really cares about this stuff
Nobody knows what God "cares" about, nor even if "caring" is something God does at all, in a sense that humans do it. It's like comparing human to CPU by clock frequency - these are different things, and clock frequency is a useable measure for a CPU (at least certain designs of CPUs) but quite useless if you want to talk about a human. You can't just bring terminology from one area onto another and expect it automatically to make sense.
> Is the God all powerful and all knowing?
Yes.
> Or literally so stupid that you can defeat the sacred logic
Why you think it's "defeating" anything? God is not a CTF contest. You framing it as "defeat" is just your framing, but it's not how Jews see it - they see it as "preserving", not "defeating".
> do religious people honestly think that this "trick" works, in a spiritual sense?
What you mean by "works"? It certainly works for them. It may not work for you, but if you are neither an observant Jew nor God, who cares if it works for you or not?
Nobody knows what God "cares" about, nor even if "caring" is something God does at all, in a sense that humans do it. It's like comparing human to CPU by clock frequency - these are different things, and clock frequency is a useable measure for a CPU (at least certain designs of CPUs) but quite useless if you want to talk about a human. You can't just bring terminology from one area onto another and expect it automatically to make sense.
> Is the God all powerful and all knowing?
Yes.
> Or literally so stupid that you can defeat the sacred logic
Why you think it's "defeating" anything? God is not a CTF contest. You framing it as "defeat" is just your framing, but it's not how Jews see it - they see it as "preserving", not "defeating".
> do religious people honestly think that this "trick" works, in a spiritual sense?
What you mean by "works"? It certainly works for them. It may not work for you, but if you are neither an observant Jew nor God, who cares if it works for you or not?
>>What you mean by "works"?
Works as in - they believe that they go for their eternal judgement and God says "I clearly said 'do no work' and you thought that by wrapping an entire city in a piece of wire you can safely ignore my commandment".
I know it's pointless to apply logic to religion, but how far could you stretch that? Could you wrap an entire country in wire and claim it still have the same effect? An entire continent? The entire planet?
>> who cares if it works for you or not?
I understand you're being flippant, but come on. I'm just asking if religious people think that such a simple "trick" is really going to be accepted by God as compliant with holy commandments. I can see the answer is clearly yes.
Works as in - they believe that they go for their eternal judgement and God says "I clearly said 'do no work' and you thought that by wrapping an entire city in a piece of wire you can safely ignore my commandment".
I know it's pointless to apply logic to religion, but how far could you stretch that? Could you wrap an entire country in wire and claim it still have the same effect? An entire continent? The entire planet?
>> who cares if it works for you or not?
I understand you're being flippant, but come on. I'm just asking if religious people think that such a simple "trick" is really going to be accepted by God as compliant with holy commandments. I can see the answer is clearly yes.
> Works as in - they believe that they go for their eternal judgement and God says "I clearly said 'do no work' and you thought that by wrapping an entire city in a piece of wire you can safely ignore my commandment".
No, that's not what they believe - they're not ignoring the commandment. They are fulfilling it in accordance with the rules given to them by God and passed down by tradition.
> Could you wrap an entire country in wire and claim it still have the same effect
I don't know, maybe - if an authority in the Jewish law declares it ok, then those who follow that authority would consider it OK. That's exactly how most Western law systems work too. If you want to know if something is lawful, you ask a lawyer. If lawyers disagree, they go to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS decides certain way, then the law is this way. Well, maybe a bit different since Jews have no SCOTUS (then called Sanhedrin) anymore, so if rabbis disagree, they just disagree and their followers do different things.
> I understand you're being flippant
No, really I am not. You try to apply your criteria to the environment and the culture of which you don't know the laws, the customs, the motivations and the history, and you complain it doesn't work for you and you don't understand it. It's like coming to somebody's house, trying on their shoes and complaining they don't fit. Well duh, it's not your shoes, why would you expect them to fit?! For people that accept this culture, it works, if you're not part of it - it doesn't, but that's fine. It's not some criticism of you, it's just not meant to work in way you think it is meant.
> I'm just asking if religious people think that such a simple "trick" is really going to be accepted by God
Religious people don't think it's a "trick". You think it's a "trick" but it's your definition, so asking what they think about it is pointless - they don't think in the terms you do.
No, that's not what they believe - they're not ignoring the commandment. They are fulfilling it in accordance with the rules given to them by God and passed down by tradition.
> Could you wrap an entire country in wire and claim it still have the same effect
I don't know, maybe - if an authority in the Jewish law declares it ok, then those who follow that authority would consider it OK. That's exactly how most Western law systems work too. If you want to know if something is lawful, you ask a lawyer. If lawyers disagree, they go to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS decides certain way, then the law is this way. Well, maybe a bit different since Jews have no SCOTUS (then called Sanhedrin) anymore, so if rabbis disagree, they just disagree and their followers do different things.
> I understand you're being flippant
No, really I am not. You try to apply your criteria to the environment and the culture of which you don't know the laws, the customs, the motivations and the history, and you complain it doesn't work for you and you don't understand it. It's like coming to somebody's house, trying on their shoes and complaining they don't fit. Well duh, it's not your shoes, why would you expect them to fit?! For people that accept this culture, it works, if you're not part of it - it doesn't, but that's fine. It's not some criticism of you, it's just not meant to work in way you think it is meant.
> I'm just asking if religious people think that such a simple "trick" is really going to be accepted by God
Religious people don't think it's a "trick". You think it's a "trick" but it's your definition, so asking what they think about it is pointless - they don't think in the terms you do.
Try to think of the Torah -- God's literal word, to Orthodox Jews -- as the Constitution, and rabbinical scholars throughout the generations as the Supreme Court.
The Torah prohibits work on Shabbat, but only points out a few instances in the broadest terms. One of those is to not carry items "between domains", directly referenced in Exodus and Jerimiah, but again only a single passage in each instance. This was expanded upon in Talmudic works, which include an explanation of what exactly constitutes a public domain.
The eruv is not a loophole to "fool God". The eruv is a means to adjust the technical (or legal) definition of a public domain.
When one ensures that a community has a functioning eruv, that itself is part of Shabbat observance.
The Torah prohibits work on Shabbat, but only points out a few instances in the broadest terms. One of those is to not carry items "between domains", directly referenced in Exodus and Jerimiah, but again only a single passage in each instance. This was expanded upon in Talmudic works, which include an explanation of what exactly constitutes a public domain.
The eruv is not a loophole to "fool God". The eruv is a means to adjust the technical (or legal) definition of a public domain.
When one ensures that a community has a functioning eruv, that itself is part of Shabbat observance.
You are re-visiting questions posed by a famous 2nd temple period rabbi from the Galilee which ultimately spawned a radical offshoot sect that exists to this very day. ;)
To me it sounds more like "cargo cult" (the software variant) than hacking. There's something, in this case a set of rules, that cannot be removed or modifed but nobody knows exactly why. They just keep following it and inventing costly hacks to keep the system running.
You either follow the spirit of the rule or you don't. This sounds like the "hack" of christianity: live a sinful life and then repent on your deadbed.
You either follow the spirit of the rule or you don't. This sounds like the "hack" of christianity: live a sinful life and then repent on your deadbed.
A question for you, Mr. Jewish hacker, a serious question, if I may.
The Commandment in Genesis 20:10 spells out the Sabbath rule. "But the seventh day is a sabbath to [the holy name]; you shall not do any work — you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns"
There seems to be a streak of moral fairness here: don't work on the seventh day, and don't use your power over others to force them to work either. Everybody enjoys a day of rest, migrant workers and beasts of burden included!
How strong is this sort of ethical argument against hacks like Shabbat elevators?
"By consuming electricy needlessly we compel some electric-utility workers to be on the job, and we fail to give Creation a much-needed tiny bit of rest."
I know there must be some conversation among observant Jews about this kind of thing as it relates to the ancient commandments. How does it go?
The Commandment in Genesis 20:10 spells out the Sabbath rule. "But the seventh day is a sabbath to [the holy name]; you shall not do any work — you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns"
There seems to be a streak of moral fairness here: don't work on the seventh day, and don't use your power over others to force them to work either. Everybody enjoys a day of rest, migrant workers and beasts of burden included!
How strong is this sort of ethical argument against hacks like Shabbat elevators?
"By consuming electricy needlessly we compel some electric-utility workers to be on the job, and we fail to give Creation a much-needed tiny bit of rest."
I know there must be some conversation among observant Jews about this kind of thing as it relates to the ancient commandments. How does it go?
>There seems to be a streak of moral fairness here: don't work on the seventh day, and don't use your power over others to force them to work either.
It's not prohibited for non-jews to work on the sabbath though, it's only prohibited for jews.
>Everybody enjoys a day of rest, migrant workers and beasts of burden included! I actually do think getting an animal or someone else to do shabbat work for you is prohibited except under certain circumstances and following certain restrictions.
>"By consuming electricy needlessly we compel some electric-utility workers to be on the job, and we fail to give Creation a much-needed tiny bit of rest." Don't think god needs to rest.
>Everybody enjoys a day of rest, migrant workers and beasts of burden included! I actually do think getting an animal or someone else to do shabbat work for you is prohibited except under certain circumstances and following certain restrictions.
>"By consuming electricy needlessly we compel some electric-utility workers to be on the job, and we fail to give Creation a much-needed tiny bit of rest." Don't think god needs to rest.
This is an excellent question, and one dealt with in Israel. Today, electricity is required for the normal functioning of modern civilization, including for hospitals and security. Once power generation is required for society, all are permitted to benefit from it.
Wikipedia source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_on_Shabbat#Use_of_...
Wikipedia source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_on_Shabbat#Use_of_...
>Alexa has opened up a whole new avenue of hacks. Previously you had to get light switches with random timers if you wanted electric light on Saturday, but now you can make an Alexa routine that is triggered by certain words or motions so that it technically doesn't count as "activating" the switch.
I don't know any rabbi which would allow this. Maybe it's a conservative thing.
Probably also why the stereotype that Jewish people are good at being lawyers exist, they basically start studying law from as soon as they start attending synagogue and studying the Talmud.
My oven has a Sabbath mode - you set the temperature and cook time, and randomly within some time period it will turn itself on and cook, then shut off. It’s just a middle-of-the-road GE. I bet most of you actually have this kind of feature and don’t realize it.
Here is a description of what this means for appliances: https://www.whirlpool.com/blog/kitchen/what-is-sabbath-mode.... It turns out I didn’t really understand how it worked! What I described is a feature, but I guess not a Sabbath mode feature
Here is a description of what this means for appliances: https://www.whirlpool.com/blog/kitchen/what-is-sabbath-mode.... It turns out I didn’t really understand how it worked! What I described is a feature, but I guess not a Sabbath mode feature
What is the difference between hot water, light and cooking when it comes to the Sabbath?
Not much and at the same time everything. The 'short' answer is there's a lot of things forbidden on the Sabbath/Shabbat under Judaism, those are all forbidden; making fire (interpreted now to include operating basically any electronic switch), cooking (heating water included so no hot water UNLESS it's water already heated in the tank [0]). You can however reheat food it seems [1] provided the oven/warming tray runs continuously so you're not creating new fire/increasing existing fire/god knows what else.
The accumulation of interpretation and rulings on various situations under the law means there's a thousand edge cases that have probably been brought up over the centuries and some ruling made. It all feels a bit like trying to rules lawyer god which is amusing to me as a TTRPG player but sounds exhausting if it were my real life.
[0] Though you also have to shut off the inlet water to the tank because the new water entering and being heated by the existing heated water (which you can use) counts as a violation. Source: https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/579/getting...
[1] https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/476/oven-ka...
The accumulation of interpretation and rulings on various situations under the law means there's a thousand edge cases that have probably been brought up over the centuries and some ruling made. It all feels a bit like trying to rules lawyer god which is amusing to me as a TTRPG player but sounds exhausting if it were my real life.
[0] Though you also have to shut off the inlet water to the tank because the new water entering and being heated by the existing heated water (which you can use) counts as a violation. Source: https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/579/getting...
[1] https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/476/oven-ka...
> thousand edge cases that have probably been brought up over the centuries
No. It wasn't this crazy until the end of WWII.
Religious community that regulates every detail of day to day life is called a destructive totalitarian sect.
No. It wasn't this crazy until the end of WWII.
Religious community that regulates every detail of day to day life is called a destructive totalitarian sect.
Please don't take HN threads into religious flamewar. That's the last thing we need here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is totally irrelevant to the discussion here - you're referring [in a rather toxic way] to ultra-Orthodoxy. My experience has been that ultra-Orthodox Jews are far less interested in and aware of the "thousand edge cases" since they prefer to stay far away from the proverbial 'edge'.
> is called a destructive totalitarian sect
no it is not, it is called that only by those who does not follow (and which these same rules does not make a difference in their lives) and for some reason feel entitled to be offended for others
I like rules
no it is not, it is called that only by those who does not follow (and which these same rules does not make a difference in their lives) and for some reason feel entitled to be offended for others
I like rules
>trying to rules lawyer god
This is probably one of the oldest traditions in Judaism, other than the Sabbath itself.
The Jewish lawyer stereotype didn't come from nowhere :)
This is probably one of the oldest traditions in Judaism, other than the Sabbath itself.
The Jewish lawyer stereotype didn't come from nowhere :)
There's a famous Jewish story about four Jewish sages disagreeing about something and one of them calling out to God to confirm he's right, and the voice of God actually booming from heaven and saying "yes, so and so is right!". The remaining sages retort "well, there's still three against two". The canonical meaning of this is that the sages in the majority actually were acting correctly. So the rule lawyering is not a bug, it's how it's meant to work :)
I have a horrible feeling I'm Jew-splaining here, but I absolutely love the story and want to give more context for people who don't know it.
Your anecdote is the last in a series, describing a debate between Rabbis Eliezer and Joshua about the kosher status of the Oven of Akhnai (a clay oven which had been ritually polluted through proximity with a corpse, but was then broken up and remade). The first anecdote has Eliezer saying, "If I'm right, let that carob tree get up and move over there!". The tree did indeed uproot itself and move a substantial distance. His interlocutor retorted "pah, what does a tree know?".
In the last anecdote as you describe, Eliezer calls out to God to back him up, and indeed God booms forth, but Joshua replies, "it [the Jewish law] is not in heaven". That is, human law is for humans to interpret, not God. It amounts to an effective way to protect the system from wholesale change by new prophets who claim to be conveying the word of God.
All cribbed from David Friedman's _Legal Systems Very Different From Ours_, an absolutely fascinating book which I strongly recommend.
Your anecdote is the last in a series, describing a debate between Rabbis Eliezer and Joshua about the kosher status of the Oven of Akhnai (a clay oven which had been ritually polluted through proximity with a corpse, but was then broken up and remade). The first anecdote has Eliezer saying, "If I'm right, let that carob tree get up and move over there!". The tree did indeed uproot itself and move a substantial distance. His interlocutor retorted "pah, what does a tree know?".
In the last anecdote as you describe, Eliezer calls out to God to back him up, and indeed God booms forth, but Joshua replies, "it [the Jewish law] is not in heaven". That is, human law is for humans to interpret, not God. It amounts to an effective way to protect the system from wholesale change by new prophets who claim to be conveying the word of God.
All cribbed from David Friedman's _Legal Systems Very Different From Ours_, an absolutely fascinating book which I strongly recommend.
I second the recommendation.
I would refer people to the dual definitions of the word "Talmudic"[1] for further proof of this:
1. of or relating to the Talmud (the collection of Jewish law and tradition)
2. characterized by or making extremely fine distinctions; overly detailed or subtle; hairsplitting.
It is extremely difficult to translate rules that were written thousands of years ago into guidance on modern life. Much of Jewish religious tradition has therefore embraced the debate, theorizing, and further definition of these rules into something that is more clear, logical, and can be practically applied by people who wish to follow them.
"Does electricity count as fire?" might seem like an arbitrary and non-sensical question to someone on the outside, but it is incredibly important to how a modern Orthodox Jewish person would practice their religion and they therefore need an answer to it. "Trying to rules lawyer god" through debate and writing on the subject seems like one of the better ways to reach a satisfying and conclusive answer to this style of question.
[1] - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/talmudic
1. of or relating to the Talmud (the collection of Jewish law and tradition)
2. characterized by or making extremely fine distinctions; overly detailed or subtle; hairsplitting.
It is extremely difficult to translate rules that were written thousands of years ago into guidance on modern life. Much of Jewish religious tradition has therefore embraced the debate, theorizing, and further definition of these rules into something that is more clear, logical, and can be practically applied by people who wish to follow them.
"Does electricity count as fire?" might seem like an arbitrary and non-sensical question to someone on the outside, but it is incredibly important to how a modern Orthodox Jewish person would practice their religion and they therefore need an answer to it. "Trying to rules lawyer god" through debate and writing on the subject seems like one of the better ways to reach a satisfying and conclusive answer to this style of question.
[1] - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/talmudic
The parts where it goes from 'seriously trying to follow the precepts of my religion' to 'rules lawyering' to me is the stuff like the eruv that encircles most of Manhattan [0] extending the 'private' zone where jews are allowed to carry things on the Sabbath or the decision that you can keep food warm in an oven so long as you take it all out at once so the additional burning that takes place after you open the door (your actions changing the functioning of the machine) is wasted and therefor unintentional (similar to the Sabbath mode on elevators).
[0] https://www.npr.org/2019/05/13/721551785/a-fishing-line-enci...
[0] https://www.npr.org/2019/05/13/721551785/a-fishing-line-enci...
Both of the cases you mention are still 'seriously trying to follow the precepts' (for many Jews, at least). A lot of (Orthodox) Jews seem to have this idea that an Eruv is this big wink-wink-nod-nod loophole which blatantly circumvents a biblical prohibition through somewhat arbitrary (ie. Lacking in essential religious meaning) legal gymnastics.
This is not the case. An Eruv is actually a beautiful example of the halakhic (translate: "Jewish law") process working as it's supposed to. Its implementation combines sharp hermeneutics with a sensitivity to the needs of real communities and a strong understanding of the meta-halakhic principles which drive the entire process
I'm not really sure if a sub- comment on HN is the right place to expand on this, but I'm happy to discuss it via some other medium.
This is not the case. An Eruv is actually a beautiful example of the halakhic (translate: "Jewish law") process working as it's supposed to. Its implementation combines sharp hermeneutics with a sensitivity to the needs of real communities and a strong understanding of the meta-halakhic principles which drive the entire process
I'm not really sure if a sub- comment on HN is the right place to expand on this, but I'm happy to discuss it via some other medium.
Oddly enough, Jews are encouraged to do this! We were given brains for a reason and we were also given the frameworks for making decisions about the law as technology and society changes.
Many of the decisions also require deep knowledge into the subject matter (not just the Jewish law) in order to make a ruling. To allow electric switches one would need to know all the intricacies of both Jewish law and electricity before a valid ruling could be made.
Many of the decisions also require deep knowledge into the subject matter (not just the Jewish law) in order to make a ruling. To allow electric switches one would need to know all the intricacies of both Jewish law and electricity before a valid ruling could be made.
This is interesting. Although I'm an atheist and have been for pretty much my entire life, I find Judaism fascination from a cultural perspective, and I have immense respect for it as a belief system.
How exactly are Jews encouraged to "rules lawyer God?" Is it literally what you said: that God gave us brains, and he expects bus to use them? Where can I find out more about this? Is there some kind of "guide to Jewish law for goyim" I can check out?
How exactly are Jews encouraged to "rules lawyer God?" Is it literally what you said: that God gave us brains, and he expects bus to use them? Where can I find out more about this? Is there some kind of "guide to Jewish law for goyim" I can check out?
I'm sorry I don't know of any particular singular resource you can check out (I know they exist, but I can't think of a good one off the top of my head), though feel free to email me and I will happily answer any question you might have.
For a small, partial start to your second question, check out this story: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oven_of_Akhnai (under the Story heading).
Note that the mystical and the magical elements of the story are often seen as the rhetorical flourishes and metaphors of the Talmud's storytelling style. The fundamental point is that even if a voice rang down from heaven declaring the law to be a certain way, a majority opinion among sages would overrule said voice. The Torah (law and teachings) was given to Jewish people, and it's now our job to interpret and wrestle with the particulars.
(I mentioned this is as a partial answer to your question, because there is a lot of nuance and further thought based on the idea. It does not, for instance, suggest an each-person-for-themself personal reinterpretation of the body of laws. It is more supporting the idea that as a society it is up to us to collectively define, refine, debate, and expand on these teachings.)
For a small, partial start to your second question, check out this story: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oven_of_Akhnai (under the Story heading).
Note that the mystical and the magical elements of the story are often seen as the rhetorical flourishes and metaphors of the Talmud's storytelling style. The fundamental point is that even if a voice rang down from heaven declaring the law to be a certain way, a majority opinion among sages would overrule said voice. The Torah (law and teachings) was given to Jewish people, and it's now our job to interpret and wrestle with the particulars.
(I mentioned this is as a partial answer to your question, because there is a lot of nuance and further thought based on the idea. It does not, for instance, suggest an each-person-for-themself personal reinterpretation of the body of laws. It is more supporting the idea that as a society it is up to us to collectively define, refine, debate, and expand on these teachings.)
As a non-Jew I sometimes find it interesting to read articles on chabad.org, which provides really detailed descriptions of all these rules on almost every topic. For example, here are the rules for reheating food on the Sabbath:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/484253/jewish...
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/484253/jewish...
I find the Judaism stack exchange https://judaism.stackexchange.com/ one of the weirdest and most interesting of SE pages. I mean that in the most voyeuristic sense, as a complete atheist. Start clicking front page questions and you'll likely soon go "huh?"
As a Jew, I must admit that Christianity SE gives me much the same impression. (Indeed, any site with a lot of unfamiliar jargon ends up feeling a bit like that.)
That is interesting. Would you consider the teachings of Judaism to be more or less authoritative than the biblical/original scriptures? (Sorry I don't know the Jewish phrasing beyond maybe the "the books of Moses")
These things you describe seem like a lot of work with not much result. Do you find it onerous to observe the rules you described?
These things you describe seem like a lot of work with not much result. Do you find it onerous to observe the rules you described?
The Orthodox view is that primacy is given to the present Rabbinic interpretations (and extensions) of the law beyond the literal meaning of the Biblical canon (called "Tanakh", which includes the 5 books of Moses as well as the writings of some later sages and prophets).
It is considered heresy to view the Bible/Tanakh as the last word on a law. Instead, the Rabbinic derivations are seen as capturing the underlying intent of biblical law as it may actually manifest in real societal practice.
An example is the famous "take an eye for an eye" statement, which is interpreted Rabinically as referring to monetary compensation for damages. Actually seeking to physically harm someone in accordance to harm done to you is a gross violation of law.
It is considered heresy to view the Bible/Tanakh as the last word on a law. Instead, the Rabbinic derivations are seen as capturing the underlying intent of biblical law as it may actually manifest in real societal practice.
An example is the famous "take an eye for an eye" statement, which is interpreted Rabinically as referring to monetary compensation for damages. Actually seeking to physically harm someone in accordance to harm done to you is a gross violation of law.
The "eye for an eye" makes some sense in your description, as it seems to be against other biblical directives.
Where can I look into your statement "It is considered heresy to view the Bible/Tanakh as the last word on a law."?
This is is a new idea that I had not heard before, and it would explain a lot of discussions I have had over the years if I understood it's source. (I keep the sabbath, annual holy days, but not the Jewish laws, so I have had some interesting discussions over the years)
Where can I look into your statement "It is considered heresy to view the Bible/Tanakh as the last word on a law."?
This is is a new idea that I had not heard before, and it would explain a lot of discussions I have had over the years if I understood it's source. (I keep the sabbath, annual holy days, but not the Jewish laws, so I have had some interesting discussions over the years)
Orthodox (and broadly, "Rabbinic") Judaism place equal weight on the "Oral Torah" – a set of evolving traditions and insights which orbit the written books in vast and intricate constellations. To deny the validity of the Oral Torah is considered heretical. If you were to just follow the 5 books, and nothing else, most modern (Orthodox) Jews would say "that's not Judaism [as we understand/perceive it]".
For a bit more info I found this Quora question, which has some good answers: https://www.quora.com/Do-people-of-the-Jewish-faith-interpre... (Only the first 3-4 answers, after which the answers divert into jokes, and a very odd fire 'n brimstone answer.)
For a bit more info I found this Quora question, which has some good answers: https://www.quora.com/Do-people-of-the-Jewish-faith-interpre... (Only the first 3-4 answers, after which the answers divert into jokes, and a very odd fire 'n brimstone answer.)
Thanks for the Quora link, there is some very interesting comments there.
It’s only the cold water entering the hot water tank that provides pressure for the hot water to flow, so if you turn off the cold water inlet, you still can’t use the hot water already in the tank, by the laws of Newton and Bernoulli.
Intent mostly, the rest is whether you are creating or not.
If you have a hot water urn, that is always on and doesn't receive new water, then consuming the water isn't usually an issue. You still need to double pour (put it in one cup then in a second to ensure it isn't hot enough to cook) but using it is OK.
If you have a large hot water tank, consuming the water IS an issue. Mostly because the moment that you consume the water, you can reasonably assume that cold water will enter the tank. Once cold water enters the tank, it will likely start heating. Thus, you become the agent that turns the heaters on in the tank. But, if the hot water was flowing BEFORE shabbat and you consume the hot water, your action does not directly affect the actions taken by the heating components. The heater is already on and using an extra amount of water has minimal impact on when the heaters turn off. Thus it is more allowed.
Light is about creation and less about the light than the means to get it. Switches create sparks internally, lights create heat (even LEDs), and you are completing a circuit. Completion can be seen as the final act of creation.
And lastly, cooking takes something from in-edible to edible. Creating food from non-food. Even on foods that are permissible to warm, they must be edible before hand. They also cannot substantially change form -- nothing too liquid or anything that would go from solid to liquid. With that framework, warming up a piece of left over baked chicken would be OK, whereas making a grilled-cheese sandwich wouldn't be OK.
If you have a hot water urn, that is always on and doesn't receive new water, then consuming the water isn't usually an issue. You still need to double pour (put it in one cup then in a second to ensure it isn't hot enough to cook) but using it is OK.
If you have a large hot water tank, consuming the water IS an issue. Mostly because the moment that you consume the water, you can reasonably assume that cold water will enter the tank. Once cold water enters the tank, it will likely start heating. Thus, you become the agent that turns the heaters on in the tank. But, if the hot water was flowing BEFORE shabbat and you consume the hot water, your action does not directly affect the actions taken by the heating components. The heater is already on and using an extra amount of water has minimal impact on when the heaters turn off. Thus it is more allowed.
Light is about creation and less about the light than the means to get it. Switches create sparks internally, lights create heat (even LEDs), and you are completing a circuit. Completion can be seen as the final act of creation.
And lastly, cooking takes something from in-edible to edible. Creating food from non-food. Even on foods that are permissible to warm, they must be edible before hand. They also cannot substantially change form -- nothing too liquid or anything that would go from solid to liquid. With that framework, warming up a piece of left over baked chicken would be OK, whereas making a grilled-cheese sandwich wouldn't be OK.
My mom uses this for starting cooking frozen turkey in middle of the night so it finishes close to when she gets up on Thanksgiving.
My Samsung does as well. I had no idea until I had to look up a function in the manual and the next item was Sabbath mode.
> In hospitals, elevators with Sabbath mode would be considered dangerous because they are to be relied on for fast service for transporting patients in dire need of care or surgery.
That's wrong for 2 reasons. First of all, most/all major hospitals in Israel have a shabbat mode. The solutions are either to have many elevators, with only some of them stoping at every floor, and/or have a manual override. If someone presses a button it goes directly there, otherwise it goes floor by floor.
That's wrong for 2 reasons. First of all, most/all major hospitals in Israel have a shabbat mode. The solutions are either to have many elevators, with only some of them stoping at every floor, and/or have a manual override. If someone presses a button it goes directly there, otherwise it goes floor by floor.
> If someone presses a button it goes directly there, otherwise it goes floor by floor.
This is also a good compromise to let people follow their religious practices without imposing the impact from them on everyone else.
This is also a good compromise to let people follow their religious practices without imposing the impact from them on everyone else.
Pushing the button in this case is still in accordance with Judaism. There is a commandment to preserve life that takes precedence over everything else.
In Israel most of elevators (at least modern one) have Sabbath mode. It has interesting implications upon relations between neighbors within building.
As long as "composition" of building is homogeneous, i.e. either totally religious or secular, Sabbath mode will be either on or off.
But it becomes tricky when into secular building move one or more religious families that request to turn Sabbath mode on. In best case scenario there are two elevators (required for buildings with more than 5 floors), so one of them will get switched to Sabbath mode (though bunch of people will be unhappy as electricity usage of building will go up + some inconvenience). If there is only one elevator, Greek drama might be a correct way to describe what happens.
edit: from the other side misery of lonely secular family in religious building where all elevators are in sabbath mode is real...
As long as "composition" of building is homogeneous, i.e. either totally religious or secular, Sabbath mode will be either on or off.
But it becomes tricky when into secular building move one or more religious families that request to turn Sabbath mode on. In best case scenario there are two elevators (required for buildings with more than 5 floors), so one of them will get switched to Sabbath mode (though bunch of people will be unhappy as electricity usage of building will go up + some inconvenience). If there is only one elevator, Greek drama might be a correct way to describe what happens.
edit: from the other side misery of lonely secular family in religious building where all elevators are in sabbath mode is real...
Without knowing anything of the religious rules at play here, could you have an elevator that incorporates both? Eg. default is to travel in Sabbath mode but non-religious residents could still use the buttons to override it to a specific floor if they desire? Obviously you still have the increased electrical consumption but you remove the inconvenience of stopping every floor for those who aren’t required to.
So you're waiting on floor 3 for the elevator to go down, someone on floor 4 gets in and presses the "skip floor" and goes to the ground.
Probably it will make elevator non-kosher...
Probably not. It's not the elevator that's nonkosher, it's pressing the buttons.
De Jure - yes. You are right.
In reality (in Israel, in this case), many people come up with their own versions/interpretation/complications of Jewish law.
As anecdote, I knew one semi-religious family (masorati but coming from very famous ultra-orthodox lineage). They won't cook on Sabbath; they won't join friends to BBQ - because Sabbath and you can't make fire but they will operate all the other appliances and will drive around in car.
In reality (in Israel, in this case), many people come up with their own versions/interpretation/complications of Jewish law.
As anecdote, I knew one semi-religious family (masorati but coming from very famous ultra-orthodox lineage). They won't cook on Sabbath; they won't join friends to BBQ - because Sabbath and you can't make fire but they will operate all the other appliances and will drive around in car.
As a child in Israel, I was fascinated with these rules.
That said, I’m saddened to see how so many people are excited by these laws, when people who are forced to live by them in Israel suffer, as there’s only one kind of “true” Judaism followed here. They can and often are used for discrimination, hate towards minorities and significant limits of freedom about what you can do, who to marry, what to eat and more.
For example, someone here used “goyim” in its pure sense - someone not from the people of Israel. I’ve often seen it used as a hate word.
That said, I’m saddened to see how so many people are excited by these laws, when people who are forced to live by them in Israel suffer, as there’s only one kind of “true” Judaism followed here. They can and often are used for discrimination, hate towards minorities and significant limits of freedom about what you can do, who to marry, what to eat and more.
For example, someone here used “goyim” in its pure sense - someone not from the people of Israel. I’ve often seen it used as a hate word.
No one is forced to do any of this, if you were Jewish you'd know that.
Goyim is also not a slur and refers in many instances ALSO to Jews, since it just means "nation."
Quit fibbin.
Goyim is also not a slur and refers in many instances ALSO to Jews, since it just means "nation."
Quit fibbin.
>Goyim is also not a slur and refers in many instances ALSO to Jews, since it just means "nation."
I don't know if you live in a jewish community, but people _definitely_ use the word "goy" in a derogatory manner. Lots of slurs also mean innocuous things; "coon" is an example, which can refer both to raccoons and also is a slur for black people.
What saddens me is the intellectual waste the study and interpretation of these laws creates. There’s an entire generation with a normal distribution of potential and intelligence, and above average in work ethic - and they are arguing obscure religious laws in a yeshiva for their whole life. What a waste.
> who are forced to live by them in Israel
Not true, no one is forced, Israel is not a dictatorship
Not true, no one is forced, Israel is not a dictatorship
I don't think one can talk about Shabbas and elevators without mentioning Feynman's take[1].
[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ev3gy/excerpt_from...
PS: I am linking to where I easily found a good quotation with enough context. It is not an argument for atheism.
[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ev3gy/excerpt_from...
PS: I am linking to where I easily found a good quotation with enough context. It is not an argument for atheism.
Of course a professor would be pleased by a culture that valued teachers. I hope anyone would. I did some mentoring for an Asian student once. I was embarrassed by how much deference I was shown, and tried to dissuade it. "But you are my teacher!" I was a little humbled by it, and pleased, to be honest. There's an obvious downside to elevating academics to too high a moral perch, but there's a positive element that you can't discount.
It’s certainly better than denigrating them as out of touch ivory tower types.
Lol the Jewish Theological Seminary is definitely not Orthodox. I'm surprised they even know enough halacha to know how to explain it; maybe it's gotten less orthodox over time.
Which is why they did not know the actual answer to his question!
The answer is that God is universal but the commandment to rest on shabbos was addressed only to Jews. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/13447/is-it-a-di...
The answer is that God is universal but the commandment to rest on shabbos was addressed only to Jews. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/13447/is-it-a-di...
It's funny how that's not even close to a difficult question. Feynman is so impressed with their logic when a teenager could answer that question in one sentence.
> While I was at the conference, I stayed at the Jewish Theological Seminary, where young rabbis--I think they were Orthodox--were studying. Since I have a Jewish background, I knew of some of the things they told me about the Talmud, but I had never seen the Talmud. It was very interesting. It's got big pages, and in a little square in the corner of the page is the original Talmud, and then in a sort of L-shaped margin, all around this square, are commentaries written by different people. The Talmud has evolved, and everything has been discussed again and again, all very carefully, in a medieval kind of reasoning. I think the commentaries were shut down around the thirteen- or fourteen- or fifteen-hundreds--there hasn't been any modern commentary.
This is mostly wrong as other have pointed out.
JTS is not by any estimation orthodox. At most it would be considered Jewish-conservative. I’m surprised to learn they are concerned with not pushing elevator buttons, if that was true then it’s certainly not true today. Additionally, the Talmud absolutely has commentaries from the modern era, you can find commentaries from even the 1950s. Though it does take a few years for those to make it into the book. Maybe not directly in the margin but likely sub-noted to the back of the book.
I also find it hilarious that he calls it medieval logic and then admits they out foxed him at every turn in any logical debate he tried. Not to mention I could likely take down the arguments he proposes without much trouble and I’m no rabbi.
This is mostly wrong as other have pointed out.
JTS is not by any estimation orthodox. At most it would be considered Jewish-conservative. I’m surprised to learn they are concerned with not pushing elevator buttons, if that was true then it’s certainly not true today. Additionally, the Talmud absolutely has commentaries from the modern era, you can find commentaries from even the 1950s. Though it does take a few years for those to make it into the book. Maybe not directly in the margin but likely sub-noted to the back of the book.
I also find it hilarious that he calls it medieval logic and then admits they out foxed him at every turn in any logical debate he tried. Not to mention I could likely take down the arguments he proposes without much trouble and I’m no rabbi.
It doesn't really matter whether electricity is fire or not, many of the Jewish religious rules (Halacha), are there to keep the cultural and the day to day life in a certain way (like any other religion).
Allowing electricity in Shabbat will completely change the Jewish life, and the amount of impact the community has on the individual.
There's another rule in the Halacha that says you must keep Shabbat different from any other day, that rule for example is one of the reasons you can't turn on your TV prior to Shabbat, and watch it without pressing buttons.
Allowing electricity in Shabbat will completely change the Jewish life, and the amount of impact the community has on the individual.
There's another rule in the Halacha that says you must keep Shabbat different from any other day, that rule for example is one of the reasons you can't turn on your TV prior to Shabbat, and watch it without pressing buttons.
>Allowing electricity in Shabbat will completely change the Jewish life, and the amount of impact the community has on the individual.
you only think this because electricity was _already_ prohibited. Imagine a world where electricity was not prohibited on shabbat (as could very well be our world if the rabbis decide it so). We would not say "electricity destroys the spirit of shabbat" because not using electricity on shabbat is only part of the spirit after it's prohibited. The reason why it was banned in the first place, as far as I could tell, was that when electricity was new incandescent lightbulbs were basically its only common application (and those are obviously ma'avir [lighting a fire]), so the rabbis of the time gave a very generalized ban on electricity which stuck.
you only think this because electricity was _already_ prohibited. Imagine a world where electricity was not prohibited on shabbat (as could very well be our world if the rabbis decide it so). We would not say "electricity destroys the spirit of shabbat" because not using electricity on shabbat is only part of the spirit after it's prohibited. The reason why it was banned in the first place, as far as I could tell, was that when electricity was new incandescent lightbulbs were basically its only common application (and those are obviously ma'avir [lighting a fire]), so the rabbis of the time gave a very generalized ban on electricity which stuck.
The grounds for probihiting electricity usage on Shabbat have gone through something of a metamorphosis, as rabbinic scholarship on the nature of electricity has expanded and the mechanisms used by electrical devices have evolved.
Given my digital-oriented profession and lifestyle, if it were not for the fact that all electronic devices are forbidden, I would find myself drifting back to work-related tasks ("oh, let's just see if this gets it to compile") to the point of losing Shabbat entirely. The blanket ban has saved my Shabbat and is part of the day's special distinctiveness.
Given my digital-oriented profession and lifestyle, if it were not for the fact that all electronic devices are forbidden, I would find myself drifting back to work-related tasks ("oh, let's just see if this gets it to compile") to the point of losing Shabbat entirely. The blanket ban has saved my Shabbat and is part of the day's special distinctiveness.
> Allowing electricity in Shabbat will completely change the Jewish life, and the amount of impact the community has on the individual.
That's fine, I can respect that.
Jewish life 1000 years ago did not have people getting in elevators, so with this "hack" Jewish life has changed. I find working around the spirit of the law to keep within the letter hilarious.
That's fine, I can respect that.
Jewish life 1000 years ago did not have people getting in elevators, so with this "hack" Jewish life has changed. I find working around the spirit of the law to keep within the letter hilarious.
https://oukosher.org/passover/articles/selling-leaven/
In Passover you aren't allowed to own certain foods, you arrange a sale to a non-jewish person, you may still keep the foods locked in your house, at the end of Passover you purchase them back (You both know the sell was fictive).
Jewish traditions have fascinating ideas and principals, but also those ridiculous hacks.
In Passover you aren't allowed to own certain foods, you arrange a sale to a non-jewish person, you may still keep the foods locked in your house, at the end of Passover you purchase them back (You both know the sell was fictive).
Jewish traditions have fascinating ideas and principals, but also those ridiculous hacks.
Kosherswitch for a light switch is a fun read, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KosherSwitch
Was an Indiegogo and all.
Was an Indiegogo and all.
If we're being nerdy about this then there are other considerations to worry about apart from just not pressing buttons.
For example, if the elevator is going down the passenger weight could increase the speed of descent marginally. This would mean the light indicating the floor number would change quicker than it would have done without the passenger being there. Therefore some authorities will only permit the Sabbath Elevator if it shuts off all indicator lights also.
For example, if the elevator is going down the passenger weight could increase the speed of descent marginally. This would mean the light indicating the floor number would change quicker than it would have done without the passenger being there. Therefore some authorities will only permit the Sabbath Elevator if it shuts off all indicator lights also.
I once heard that because of this one should make an hydraulic elevator, so the passenger weight would not affect the energy used, not sure if this holds true or if it is even practical
I don’t think that’s true. Hydraulics are just a way of transferring/multiplying force, like gears or belts (but much more powerful). The amount of weight to be moved will certainly modulate the energy consumption of the motor.
As I was walking on the street, I was asked by a jewish man to turn on his oven on a Saturday!
That was one of the weirdest experience ever!
first, this man did not want to sin, so he asked me to do this for him. He did not care if i sinned i guess!!
Second, if there is a God, I hope he is not so silly to care if I pushed a button on a Saturday or not?
I don't know the specifics of his situations, but in general asking a gentile to do work for you is also prohibited. but also
>He did not care if i sinned i guess!!
doing work is only a sin for jews, not gentiles.
>He did not care if i sinned i guess!!
doing work is only a sin for jews, not gentiles.
This allows passengers to step on and off without having to press any buttons. This prevents violation of the Sabbath prohibition against operating electrical devices when Sabbath is in effect for those who observe this ritual.
That is also true of a Paternoster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster_lift
That is also true of a Paternoster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster_lift
A paternoster would actually be far better in this application, but I don't think any have been built in a long time.
I love the contrivance of this need. Somewhere between indolence and observance. Or between humor and insanity. Interesting nonetheless…
If you like that, you'll love this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv
To which I ask: Why not place a small loop of (wire, cord, thread, whatever qualifies) on the ground in a park somewhere. Then define "outside" and "inside" the other way 'round from "normal", thus making very-nearly the entirety of the earth "inside", and the very small portion "outside".
It seems logical to me, and I've never heard a reason it can't be done other than "that's defeating the point."
Which I admit, it entirely is, but I don't see it as any more "wrong" than encircling entire cities, and it's a whole lot simpler to maintain.
It seems logical to me, and I've never heard a reason it can't be done other than "that's defeating the point."
Which I admit, it entirely is, but I don't see it as any more "wrong" than encircling entire cities, and it's a whole lot simpler to maintain.
This is basically how Wonko the Sane's "Outside of the Asylum" works in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/The_Outside_of_the_Asylu...
https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/The_Outside_of_the_Asylu...
>It seems logical to me
oh since you're _so knowledgeable_ about jewish law I'm sure your opinion is very informed.
No, you can't do that. You can only put an eruv around a specific type of domain called a karmelis, in which carrying is only a rabbinic prohibition.
oh since you're _so knowledgeable_ about jewish law I'm sure your opinion is very informed.
No, you can't do that. You can only put an eruv around a specific type of domain called a karmelis, in which carrying is only a rabbinic prohibition.
There are limits to how big they can be, and they can't contain large bodies of water.
It does also defeat the point. That may not be a compelling argument if you don't know what the point is, but there is one.
It does also defeat the point. That may not be a compelling argument if you don't know what the point is, but there is one.
> It does also defeat the point. That may not be a compelling argument if you don't know what the point is, but there is one.
In fairness, the article itself as well as the Eruv article on Wikipedia linked here both make it seem that the whole point is to enact a kind of escape hatch to a rule that was found to be too strict to be workable in practice.
For example, Wikipedia:
> What constitutes a "public area" is debated. The strict opinion holds that any road more than 16 cubits wide is a public domain, while the lenient opinion holds that a public domain must have both 16 cubits of width and 600,000 people passing through the road on a single day. In practice, communities that build eruvin accept the lenient opinion.
In other words, it's only with the most lenient interpretation of the laws that this kind of escape hatch is even possible somewhere like Manhattan, and possibly not even there.
A typical American feeling is that rules are either important and should be upheld, or unimportant (or bad) and should be gotten rid of. The perspective behind eruvin seems (edit: based on the Wikipedia article, see replies) to hold that rules are important only in their most direct and legalistic version, and even then only to the extent that you can't weasel your way out of them. If that's the case, it's hard to say what's in principle wrong with the idea of a tiny eruv that the whole world is "inside", other than tradition.
In fairness, the article itself as well as the Eruv article on Wikipedia linked here both make it seem that the whole point is to enact a kind of escape hatch to a rule that was found to be too strict to be workable in practice.
For example, Wikipedia:
> What constitutes a "public area" is debated. The strict opinion holds that any road more than 16 cubits wide is a public domain, while the lenient opinion holds that a public domain must have both 16 cubits of width and 600,000 people passing through the road on a single day. In practice, communities that build eruvin accept the lenient opinion.
In other words, it's only with the most lenient interpretation of the laws that this kind of escape hatch is even possible somewhere like Manhattan, and possibly not even there.
A typical American feeling is that rules are either important and should be upheld, or unimportant (or bad) and should be gotten rid of. The perspective behind eruvin seems (edit: based on the Wikipedia article, see replies) to hold that rules are important only in their most direct and legalistic version, and even then only to the extent that you can't weasel your way out of them. If that's the case, it's hard to say what's in principle wrong with the idea of a tiny eruv that the whole world is "inside", other than tradition.
>In other words, it's only with the most lenient interpretation of the laws that this kind of escape hatch is even possible somewhere like Manhattan, and possibly not even there.
yes exactly. There are rabbis (in particular I think a lot of sephardic rabbis because Maimonides was strict about eruv) who wouldn't carry in anything less than a walled city.
yes exactly. There are rabbis (in particular I think a lot of sephardic rabbis because Maimonides was strict about eruv) who wouldn't carry in anything less than a walled city.
The comment I was responding to was a fair question. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
That said, your comment contains several significant misconceptions, and you are far too confident despite not having any idea what you are talking about.
First, neither elevation.fandom.com nor Wikipedia are good sources for Jewish thought. How things seem to someone who has no background knowledge after consulting a poor source is of little interest to anyone engaging in serious consideration.
Second, as with most questions in Judaism, there are multiple opinions. Most communities eventually agreed on one position to follow (at least in practice). In this particular case most communities settled on the more lenient position, but just as often it settles on more stringent interpretations. That has no relevance to the question of whether or not Eruvin are a loophole.
Third, Eruvin are not a loophole. They are not an escape hatch or an attempt to weasel out of the rules. They are an elegant extension of the rules that simultaneously uphold the letter and the spirit of the law in the face of changing circumstance. If you understand this it is obvious why we cannot have a single worldwide Eruv. Because it breaks both. It also just straight up doesn't make any sense.
That said, your comment contains several significant misconceptions, and you are far too confident despite not having any idea what you are talking about.
First, neither elevation.fandom.com nor Wikipedia are good sources for Jewish thought. How things seem to someone who has no background knowledge after consulting a poor source is of little interest to anyone engaging in serious consideration.
Second, as with most questions in Judaism, there are multiple opinions. Most communities eventually agreed on one position to follow (at least in practice). In this particular case most communities settled on the more lenient position, but just as often it settles on more stringent interpretations. That has no relevance to the question of whether or not Eruvin are a loophole.
Third, Eruvin are not a loophole. They are not an escape hatch or an attempt to weasel out of the rules. They are an elegant extension of the rules that simultaneously uphold the letter and the spirit of the law in the face of changing circumstance. If you understand this it is obvious why we cannot have a single worldwide Eruv. Because it breaks both. It also just straight up doesn't make any sense.
> That said, your comment contains several significant misconceptions, and you are far too confident despite not having any idea what you are talking about.
Sorry, the intent of my comment was actually not to state any kind of conception at all - rather, I wanted to indicate exactly why it is that most people are approaching it from this angle. I understand that none of the sources here are necessarily reliable, but the fact that they're the resources available to most people in the thread are the reason there's so much misunderstanding. (I've made a small edit to my comment to try to make this a little more clear.)
So what I wanted to get at was the fact that anyone reading the Wikipedia article would likely pick up on the obvious implication it contains that eruvin are an attempt to weasel out of a set of rules with legalism.
> They are an elegant extension of the rules that simultaneously uphold the letter and the spirit of the law in the face of changing circumstance.
I would be curious to learn more about this, if the process can be made clear to a non-Jew. For example, how does an eruv help uphold the spirit of the law? If the spirit of the law is what matters, one would intuitively think that you wouldn't need a symbolic "wall" around the community, because the distinction that counts (excluding public spaces) already exists, just not with a physical wall around it. Intuitively, one gets the impression that the wire only needs to exist in order to satisfy a specific rule that has been inherited but no longer matters very much for "spirit-interpretation" today.
Sorry, the intent of my comment was actually not to state any kind of conception at all - rather, I wanted to indicate exactly why it is that most people are approaching it from this angle. I understand that none of the sources here are necessarily reliable, but the fact that they're the resources available to most people in the thread are the reason there's so much misunderstanding. (I've made a small edit to my comment to try to make this a little more clear.)
So what I wanted to get at was the fact that anyone reading the Wikipedia article would likely pick up on the obvious implication it contains that eruvin are an attempt to weasel out of a set of rules with legalism.
> They are an elegant extension of the rules that simultaneously uphold the letter and the spirit of the law in the face of changing circumstance.
I would be curious to learn more about this, if the process can be made clear to a non-Jew. For example, how does an eruv help uphold the spirit of the law? If the spirit of the law is what matters, one would intuitively think that you wouldn't need a symbolic "wall" around the community, because the distinction that counts (excluding public spaces) already exists, just not with a physical wall around it. Intuitively, one gets the impression that the wire only needs to exist in order to satisfy a specific rule that has been inherited but no longer matters very much for "spirit-interpretation" today.
The reason I say that eruv uphold the spirit of the law is because it is permissible to carry within walled cities. If it wasn't the intention of the law to make carrying outdoors completely off limits, then it is hard to see why an eruv violates the spirit of the law.
As for why it is necessary to have the physical construction: Just as the law doesn't intend to forbid carrying everywhere, it doesn't intend to permit it everywhere. The actual existence of a physical boundary prevents the perceived permissibility of carrying from expanding constantly. Without it, there would need to be some other equally arbitrary seeming rule about what constitutes a single community.
I also think it is important to mention that both the spirit and the letter of the law are quite important. Even setting aside the question of the spirit of the law, they are still necessary because they are mandated in a legalistic sense.
As for why it is necessary to have the physical construction: Just as the law doesn't intend to forbid carrying everywhere, it doesn't intend to permit it everywhere. The actual existence of a physical boundary prevents the perceived permissibility of carrying from expanding constantly. Without it, there would need to be some other equally arbitrary seeming rule about what constitutes a single community.
I also think it is important to mention that both the spirit and the letter of the law are quite important. Even setting aside the question of the spirit of the law, they are still necessary because they are mandated in a legalistic sense.
Thanks for explaining, I think I see the idea more clearly now.
First, I appreciate the answer. I didn't know about the "no large bodies of water" requirement. When then leads me to ask, what's a "large" body of water?
Second, and I'm not trying to be snarky, just trying to understand: What is the limit on size? I understand there's a point where physically building and maintaining it isn't practical, but is still theoretically possible.
As for defeating the point, I'll admit I only somewhat understand that argument.
As far as I understand -- and I'll readily admit I do not have a great understanding -- the whole concept of the eruv is specifically designed to "defeat the point" of another rule (or set of rules).
Why is "defeating the point" considered to be "ok" or not "ok" based on scale?
Likewise, if "defeating the point" is wrong, why is it not always wrong?
Again, my intention is to understand, not to be snarky or otherwise inappropriate about it, and I'll apologize in advance if my questions cross lines I was unaware of.
Second, and I'm not trying to be snarky, just trying to understand: What is the limit on size? I understand there's a point where physically building and maintaining it isn't practical, but is still theoretically possible.
As for defeating the point, I'll admit I only somewhat understand that argument.
As far as I understand -- and I'll readily admit I do not have a great understanding -- the whole concept of the eruv is specifically designed to "defeat the point" of another rule (or set of rules).
Why is "defeating the point" considered to be "ok" or not "ok" based on scale?
Likewise, if "defeating the point" is wrong, why is it not always wrong?
Again, my intention is to understand, not to be snarky or otherwise inappropriate about it, and I'll apologize in advance if my questions cross lines I was unaware of.
To me (an atheist) this and the eruv thing (as linked in response to your post) sound very insane, without much humor thrown in. It's fully grown up, serious, rational people wasting engineering effort, money and time on ridiculous, arbitrary rules.
Don't get me wrong, I 100 % respect anyone's right to go through all this, but I would personally hate to be part of this.
Don't get me wrong, I 100 % respect anyone's right to go through all this, but I would personally hate to be part of this.
> ridiculous, arbitrary rules
... that everybody, including the God who made the rules, understands are being violated. Can one actually believe that "haha, we pranked an all-knowing, all-powerful, vindictive deity" is the path to being considered righteous by that deity?
... that everybody, including the God who made the rules, understands are being violated. Can one actually believe that "haha, we pranked an all-knowing, all-powerful, vindictive deity" is the path to being considered righteous by that deity?
In my faith tradition, G-d defiantly does have a sense of humor.
Except God _didn't_ forbid these things.
> It's fully grown up, serious, rational people wasting engineering effort, money and time on ridiculous, arbitrary rules.
You'll find lots of such people here on HN. Ever seen entire, perfectly working programs and libraries, rewritten from scratch because the original license was not kosher/halal? It seems to be quite the rage today.
You'll find lots of such people here on HN. Ever seen entire, perfectly working programs and libraries, rewritten from scratch because the original license was not kosher/halal? It seems to be quite the rage today.
It's all rather silly, isn't it?
I wanted to post an alternative approach to 'rules lawyering' in Judaism in contrast to the 'loophole' approach taken by some comments in the thread:
God does not have a vendetta against elevators. God decreed specific sets of rules that make actions on the Sabbath forbidden, as interpreted by rabbis over the generations. When new situations arise the rules are applied to the new situation to see whether it is permitted or forbidden. Sometimes, like with elevators, the consensus is that the new situation is forbidden. In such a case, if there is good reason, the question becomes: "is there a way that we can tweak the situation so that it doesn't fall into the forbidden category?". For elevators, the answer is yes.
This still follows the spirit and letter of the law, because the spirit of the law really only applied to the reasons that made the elevator problematic in the first place and not to the whole concept of elevators.
God does not have a vendetta against elevators. God decreed specific sets of rules that make actions on the Sabbath forbidden, as interpreted by rabbis over the generations. When new situations arise the rules are applied to the new situation to see whether it is permitted or forbidden. Sometimes, like with elevators, the consensus is that the new situation is forbidden. In such a case, if there is good reason, the question becomes: "is there a way that we can tweak the situation so that it doesn't fall into the forbidden category?". For elevators, the answer is yes.
This still follows the spirit and letter of the law, because the spirit of the law really only applied to the reasons that made the elevator problematic in the first place and not to the whole concept of elevators.
What is the "spirit" of the law that's being violated when you press an elevator button, that isn't violated by general usage of the elevator at all?
The answer to that question is quite tricky because the spirit of the law gets much less discussion in the literature compared to the letter.
A simple explanation is that God restricted Jews from 'work' that affects the world in certain ways on Shabbat in order that they should rest. For example, no building, or lighting fires. However, they can benefit from pre-existing fires or buildings.
Pressing the elevator button is akin to one of these forbidden effects (which one depends on a broad discussion about electricity on Shabbat), going against the injunction to rest. Walking in to the elevator and it moving automatically is more similar to benefitting from an existing fire.
While it may seem strange that pressing the elevator button is considered 'work', the answer to that is that the definition of work is directly related to the laws and not necessarily some external metric like effort. This means that the spirit and letter end up very closely related, but I think the distinction still exists.
A simple explanation is that God restricted Jews from 'work' that affects the world in certain ways on Shabbat in order that they should rest. For example, no building, or lighting fires. However, they can benefit from pre-existing fires or buildings.
Pressing the elevator button is akin to one of these forbidden effects (which one depends on a broad discussion about electricity on Shabbat), going against the injunction to rest. Walking in to the elevator and it moving automatically is more similar to benefitting from an existing fire.
While it may seem strange that pressing the elevator button is considered 'work', the answer to that is that the definition of work is directly related to the laws and not necessarily some external metric like effort. This means that the spirit and letter end up very closely related, but I think the distinction still exists.
I wonder if a paternoster elevator qualifies for Sabbath, and how its energy usage compares to putting a standard car into Sabbath Mode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster_lift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster_lift
Have you used one? I have. There's a reason they are gone: these are terrifying to use.
The title, the comments in https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/391bxv/paternoster_... for example all mention this.
The title, the comments in https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/391bxv/paternoster_... for example all mention this.
I’ve used one and wasn’t even remotely worried; calling it “terrifying” is a little extreme.
I have, and I find them convenient and awesome, not terrifying. Next time you use them, take a closer look at the safety features. The obvious pinch points tend to be secured with sensors that trigger an emergency stop and breakaway panels.
See for example this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJBD1wf-YQ
In the very beginning, about one second in, you can see the static part of the floor going towards the cabin is a moveable board. Likewise, the "do not stand forward of this line" part of the cabin visible later is a flap that prevents the bottom of the cabin from squishing someone while going down.
The main risks are falling (note the gap between e.g. the entry floor board and the top of the cabin, or the floor of the cabin and the shaft wall), injuries from failed attempts to transport bulky items, and if you go through the top/bottom, there are gears that you can stick your hand into. But as long as you're not intentionally doing something stupid, there really is no reason to be terrified of them.
Now, a manlift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_manlift or man engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_engine... that's terrifying.
See for example this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJBD1wf-YQ
In the very beginning, about one second in, you can see the static part of the floor going towards the cabin is a moveable board. Likewise, the "do not stand forward of this line" part of the cabin visible later is a flap that prevents the bottom of the cabin from squishing someone while going down.
The main risks are falling (note the gap between e.g. the entry floor board and the top of the cabin, or the floor of the cabin and the shaft wall), injuries from failed attempts to transport bulky items, and if you go through the top/bottom, there are gears that you can stick your hand into. But as long as you're not intentionally doing something stupid, there really is no reason to be terrified of them.
Now, a manlift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_manlift or man engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_engine... that's terrifying.
I went to college at a place with a pretty big Jewish population and happened to live in the apartments closest to the campus Jewish center. It was always interesting to see how the Jewish students had special keys to enter the building on Shabbat or a way to automatically set the elevator to Shabbat mode. I thought it was a nice way to respect the religion while also not inconveniencing the other tenants (though I lived on the first floor anyway).
They used a key on the Sabbath to change the operation of the elevator so they would not have to press buttons on the elevator? Sounds like more work so less observant, but I guess with most religions it is the thought that counts.
It's likely the elevator would be set by default to sabbath mode, unless someone specifically pressed the button to go to a specific floor.
Action is (arguably) more important than thought in Judaism.
Action is (arguably) more important than thought in Judaism.
With that in mind, why are they using the elevator at all? The fact that there is a difference between using and operating is very convenient.
Not GP but I think the keys were to enter the dorm building without scanning an electronic FOB or ID card, not for the elevator.
You misunderstand. The key is to get into the room (as opposed to the presumably electronic locks which are usually used) and the elevator is set beforehand.
Judaism has a lot of rules:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments
But the sanctity of life trumps virtually all of them, so you can almost always violate a commandment to save a life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments
But the sanctity of life trumps virtually all of them, so you can almost always violate a commandment to save a life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh
As teenage boys in Hebrew school, we always tried to figure out ways in which violating the commandment against adultery could save a life.
If I remember correctly there are 3 things you can't do to save a life: illicit relations, take a life and idolatry.
Meaning even that if you do find yourself in a situation where cheating on your wife would actually save a life then it will still be forbidden
Yeah, there's actually an explicit example in the talmud.
https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.75a.2?lang=bi&with=all&lan...
definitely prohibited
EDIT: actually this gemara is an example of saving ones own life, so maybe not
https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.75a.2?lang=bi&with=all&lan...
definitely prohibited
EDIT: actually this gemara is an example of saving ones own life, so maybe not
You should watch the first episode of Black Mirror. Depending upon your exact interpretation of the rules, this may contain an example.
What’s the meaning of „the Sabbath prohibition against operating electrical devices“? Not executing a physical action? Any action? Intent?
An elevator that cycles between floors and one that only moves to a floor to pick up a passenger when they wait in front of the door might be indistinguishable from the perspective of the user. Would the difference matter?
What about showing the intent to exit the elevator at a particular floor by e.g. taking a step towards the door of the cabin and having the elevator detect that?
Telling a liftboy where to go seems to be ok. Now let us assume that it is quite a shy liftboy, so we grant his wish to have a privacy shield to hide behind while taking the passenger’s wish. Would it matter if we replaced him with a voice assistant if the passenger had no way of telling that?
An elevator that cycles between floors and one that only moves to a floor to pick up a passenger when they wait in front of the door might be indistinguishable from the perspective of the user. Would the difference matter?
What about showing the intent to exit the elevator at a particular floor by e.g. taking a step towards the door of the cabin and having the elevator detect that?
Telling a liftboy where to go seems to be ok. Now let us assume that it is quite a shy liftboy, so we grant his wish to have a privacy shield to hide behind while taking the passenger’s wish. Would it matter if we replaced him with a voice assistant if the passenger had no way of telling that?
Closing a switch has been determined to be equivalent to starting a fire. Some workarounds use magnetic switches which are acceptable to some.
airhead969(2)
A magnetic switch by itself isn't enough. You have to not know exactly if you initiated a certain action. And devices like this are only permitted for emergency workers, or for medical assistance equipment like a motorized wheelchair, and not everyone holds that this is allowed.
You can find accurate information at the Zomet institute https://www.zomet.org.il/eng/
It's not really right for Hacker News to debate Jewish Law during the shabbos in the U.S. when Jews aren't around.
You can find accurate information at the Zomet institute https://www.zomet.org.il/eng/
It's not really right for Hacker News to debate Jewish Law during the shabbos in the U.S. when Jews aren't around.
It's not really right for Hacker News to debate Jewish Law during the shabbos in the U.S. when Jews aren't around.
Why not? It's true that religious topics have the potential for flame wars, and often don't match the goals of HN. Outside of HN, it's important for religion and culture not to be exempt from rational inquiry, both by insiders and outsiders. If religious or deep cultural discussion were only permissible when a devotee is present, then demonstrably problematic religions or cultures would have an unfair and biased insulating shield to maintain their problems under the guise of false decency.
But specifically in this case where a very prominent culture intersects with technology in a very unique way, why can't it be discussed from a technological and anthropological perspective, regardless of who is around, and whether they are either not a member of this culture, or they are violating their local time's sabbath by doing so?
Why not? It's true that religious topics have the potential for flame wars, and often don't match the goals of HN. Outside of HN, it's important for religion and culture not to be exempt from rational inquiry, both by insiders and outsiders. If religious or deep cultural discussion were only permissible when a devotee is present, then demonstrably problematic religions or cultures would have an unfair and biased insulating shield to maintain their problems under the guise of false decency.
But specifically in this case where a very prominent culture intersects with technology in a very unique way, why can't it be discussed from a technological and anthropological perspective, regardless of who is around, and whether they are either not a member of this culture, or they are violating their local time's sabbath by doing so?
I would offer that I think the discussion here is respectful and seeking understanding for the most part. Personally, I truly respect the dedication the faithful have in living life according to the faith, and learning more about my neighbors and acquaintances is really interesting.
Closing a switch is akin to finishing a work, or giving the final hammer blow on the nail, not starting a fire
Closing a switch is akin to nothing and I've never been given a good answer from the many rabbis I've asked. It's abundantly clear to me that all the answers anyone gives are post-hoc and iirc rav shlomo zalman auerbach ZT"L agrees with me.
Apologies to the general audience -- this is going to get very low-level in terms of Jewish technical practice:
I agree that all historical attempts to associate electricity with particular melachot were not based on a full scientific understanding. Pinning the "fire" label on incandescent bulbs didn't really address the fundamental issue for all other appliances. As you mentioned, Rav SZ Auerbach would likely not have associated smartphone or laptop usage with uvdin d'chol.
However, I'm eminently thankful that the standard Orthdox practice has evolved to prohibit electrical appliance usage. I can see what Shabbat would have become otherwise, based on what Tisha B'Av is like. On Tisha B'Av, I make an effort to get into the spirit of the day, which means that I use my laptop for listening to (or watching) kinot and reading appropriate material. In the afternoon, when I'm worn out, I'll just "peek over" bat email -- and by then, the Tisha B'Av effect is shot.
If laptop usage were not forbidden, Shabbat would sadly become almost like every other day (at least for me).
On the flip side, I have enormous sympathy for the youth who keep "half Shabbat", i.e. they don't perform any major melachot, but they will use their smartphones. For many of them, social networks are an essential element of their daily life.
I agree that all historical attempts to associate electricity with particular melachot were not based on a full scientific understanding. Pinning the "fire" label on incandescent bulbs didn't really address the fundamental issue for all other appliances. As you mentioned, Rav SZ Auerbach would likely not have associated smartphone or laptop usage with uvdin d'chol.
However, I'm eminently thankful that the standard Orthdox practice has evolved to prohibit electrical appliance usage. I can see what Shabbat would have become otherwise, based on what Tisha B'Av is like. On Tisha B'Av, I make an effort to get into the spirit of the day, which means that I use my laptop for listening to (or watching) kinot and reading appropriate material. In the afternoon, when I'm worn out, I'll just "peek over" bat email -- and by then, the Tisha B'Av effect is shot.
If laptop usage were not forbidden, Shabbat would sadly become almost like every other day (at least for me).
On the flip side, I have enormous sympathy for the youth who keep "half Shabbat", i.e. they don't perform any major melachot, but they will use their smartphones. For many of them, social networks are an essential element of their daily life.
> What’s the meaning of „the Sabbath prohibition against operating electrical devices“? Not executing a physical action? Any action? Intent?
My understanding as a Jew (though not Orthodox) is that you are forbidden from manually turning electrical devices on and off, and from altering the behaviour of a running device. So if you, say, accidentally turn on a stove just before the Sabbath starts, you then cannot turn it off until the Sabbath ends (or you get a non-Jew to do it for you).
> An elevator that cycles between floors and one that only moves to a floor to pick up a passenger when they wait in front of the door might be indistinguishable from the perspective of the user. Would the difference matter?
IANA rabbi, but I suspect this does indeed matter. In the former case the elevator is just doing the same thing over and over again, while in the latter case the user is actively controlling the elevator.
> What about showing the intent to exit the elevator at a particular floor by e.g. taking a step towards the door of the cabin and having the elevator detect that?
Again, I suspect this would be forbidden.
My understanding as a Jew (though not Orthodox) is that you are forbidden from manually turning electrical devices on and off, and from altering the behaviour of a running device. So if you, say, accidentally turn on a stove just before the Sabbath starts, you then cannot turn it off until the Sabbath ends (or you get a non-Jew to do it for you).
> An elevator that cycles between floors and one that only moves to a floor to pick up a passenger when they wait in front of the door might be indistinguishable from the perspective of the user. Would the difference matter?
IANA rabbi, but I suspect this does indeed matter. In the former case the elevator is just doing the same thing over and over again, while in the latter case the user is actively controlling the elevator.
> What about showing the intent to exit the elevator at a particular floor by e.g. taking a step towards the door of the cabin and having the elevator detect that?
Again, I suspect this would be forbidden.
Hmmm... Never thought of this before.
Does this mean that in future an electric AI shabos goy
(gentile assistant for things like the stove problem) could not be Kashrut (Kosher) since giving it commands could close electric circuits?
Yeah obviously an electronic shabbat goy is prohibited.
Far from a Rabbinic expert but from what I've read it shouldn't be Kosher because you're still initiating the action with the intent of performing something that's otherwise forbidden to do directly, the method of operation for the assistant doesn't really factor in.
There is a discussion about whether you can use Alexa/Siri/HG on Shabbat.
Is there? Among who? I'm not aware of anyone who keeps Shabbat who uses voice activated electronics.
I think the consensus is “no” but there is a discussion bec it’s closer to hinting at something than doing it directly.
I ask again, discussion among who?
If someone reading this keeps Shabbat traditionally and uses voice activated technology on Shabbat (or knows someone who does), please speak up. I would like to hear about your practice. Otherwise, I would prefer to avoid giving the impression that this is a position that anyone holds. There is far too much misinformation present in this thread already.
If someone reading this keeps Shabbat traditionally and uses voice activated technology on Shabbat (or knows someone who does), please speak up. I would like to hear about your practice. Otherwise, I would prefer to avoid giving the impression that this is a position that anyone holds. There is far too much misinformation present in this thread already.
Bro, idk, I listened to a shiur where it was brought up, I’m not about to go searching through Rav Schecters musser shmuzen for you.
One of the top comments in the article currently is by jedberg, who says in another comment that he went to Hebrew school. He discusses using Alexa as a Shabbat "hack": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27012719
Fair enough, although not everyone who went to Hebrew school keeps Shabbat.
I will say, for the sake of combating misinformation about Judaism, that people who keep Shabbat traditionally, but also use voice activated technology on Shabbat are extremely rare, if they exist at all. I have never heard of someone who actually adheres to this practice despite living in a community that is on the extreme liberal end of Shabbat observant Jews[0].
[0] Which is where you would expect this to happen if it actually did.
I will say, for the sake of combating misinformation about Judaism, that people who keep Shabbat traditionally, but also use voice activated technology on Shabbat are extremely rare, if they exist at all. I have never heard of someone who actually adheres to this practice despite living in a community that is on the extreme liberal end of Shabbat observant Jews[0].
[0] Which is where you would expect this to happen if it actually did.
Going to Hebrew school doesn’t make one orthodox.
> Telling a liftboy where to go seems to be ok
Why is it that Hacker News loves to bring up topics where Jewish Law is discussed by non Jews during the Sabbath in the U.S. when most Jews who read Hacker News won't be able to provide correct information?
(I am in Jerusalem this week, where it's already Sunday)
Why is it that Hacker News loves to bring up topics where Jewish Law is discussed by non Jews during the Sabbath in the U.S. when most Jews who read Hacker News won't be able to provide correct information?
(I am in Jerusalem this week, where it's already Sunday)
Some of it is probably a direct result of people signing off of social media for the day (prompting other people to think thoughts about it).
Probably because it being the Sabbath reminds people of the topic
You seem to be implying that there's some sort of concerted effort to do this.
Is this an actual thing that you've noticed?
As in do you have any sort of data or proof to back up this assertion that there's some sort of conspiracy to discuss the Sabbath when Jews can't discuss it?
Is this an actual thing that you've noticed?
As in do you have any sort of data or proof to back up this assertion that there's some sort of conspiracy to discuss the Sabbath when Jews can't discuss it?
What makes you think that most of Jews on HN observe Sabbath ?
Signed: Jew, where it's still Sabbath
Signed: Jew, where it's still Sabbath
The great majority of jews who don't observe sabbath have very rudimentary understanding of the intricacies of jewish law involving sabbath.
Edit - it's the truth down vote if you can't respond with an intelligent argument. When discussing the details of a physics problem and not involving the people who have studied that field the most you are unlikely to get an informed answer. 'but we have other scientists" you say - well they'd talk to the physicists.
Edit - it's the truth down vote if you can't respond with an intelligent argument. When discussing the details of a physics problem and not involving the people who have studied that field the most you are unlikely to get an informed answer. 'but we have other scientists" you say - well they'd talk to the physicists.
A good chunk of great majority of jews who don't observe sabbath actually live in Israel (and in many cases they were raised in religious families). Over there you get exposed to different aspects of jewish law involving sabbath (or other parts of life) whether you like it or not and get rather familiar with it.
Yea, probably not as in depth understanding as ultra-orthodox, but more than enough to been able to keep up in HN conversation.
Yea, probably not as in depth understanding as ultra-orthodox, but more than enough to been able to keep up in HN conversation.
>A good chunk of great majority of jews who don't observe sabbath actually live in Israel
this doesn't mean anything. most people in israel are secular, very secular.
>(and in many cases they were raised in religious families)
this is a different demographic you're trying to pretend is somehow as numerous as the first group you describe, 'living in israel'. They're a tiny minority of the population.
>Over there you get exposed to different aspects of jewish law involving sabbath (or other parts of life) whether you like it or not and get rather familiar with it.
You're actually talking to a israeli not living in israel any longer who grew up in a religious family. I can tell you firsthand that my brother, who spends hours every day studying gemarah, has a million times more knowledge than me about it. Your suggestion that you 'get exposed to different aspects' makes someone an expert or even informed is false. IT's like 'getting exposed' to physics you never studies because you live in a place where other people study physics - the people studying physics are the experts not their neighbour.
>Yea, probably not as in depth understanding as ultra-orthodox, but more than enough to been able to keep up in HN conversation.
First, not even as good an understanding as normal orthodox (no need to jump to ultra), or even a someone who is very deeply Conservative. Just because you can't take a bus on a saturday doesn't mean you know the ins and outs of why.
Second - that was the whole criticism - that HN discussion of it was very uninformed and specifically because all the experts wouldnt be on while its shabbat, so you're kind of repeating his point there.
this doesn't mean anything. most people in israel are secular, very secular.
>(and in many cases they were raised in religious families)
this is a different demographic you're trying to pretend is somehow as numerous as the first group you describe, 'living in israel'. They're a tiny minority of the population.
>Over there you get exposed to different aspects of jewish law involving sabbath (or other parts of life) whether you like it or not and get rather familiar with it.
You're actually talking to a israeli not living in israel any longer who grew up in a religious family. I can tell you firsthand that my brother, who spends hours every day studying gemarah, has a million times more knowledge than me about it. Your suggestion that you 'get exposed to different aspects' makes someone an expert or even informed is false. IT's like 'getting exposed' to physics you never studies because you live in a place where other people study physics - the people studying physics are the experts not their neighbour.
>Yea, probably not as in depth understanding as ultra-orthodox, but more than enough to been able to keep up in HN conversation.
First, not even as good an understanding as normal orthodox (no need to jump to ultra), or even a someone who is very deeply Conservative. Just because you can't take a bus on a saturday doesn't mean you know the ins and outs of why.
Second - that was the whole criticism - that HN discussion of it was very uninformed and specifically because all the experts wouldnt be on while its shabbat, so you're kind of repeating his point there.
You're actually talking to israeli not living in Israel.
Yes, most people in Israel are secular or very secular. And a part of reason for it been so, it's the attitude that you exhibit here: if you are not orthodox (or at least not very deeply Conservative) you are not jew (enough).
And living in Israel exposes you to enough aspects of religion to know "why I can't just press a button in order to get to floor that I want right now". Or why a bunch of guys in black hats stone McDonald windows or a bunch of girls who got by accident into religious neighberhood.
Maybe not deep aspects enough, as your brother who studying gamarah, but sufficient enough.
Yes, most people in Israel are secular or very secular. And a part of reason for it been so, it's the attitude that you exhibit here: if you are not orthodox (or at least not very deeply Conservative) you are not jew (enough).
And living in Israel exposes you to enough aspects of religion to know "why I can't just press a button in order to get to floor that I want right now". Or why a bunch of guys in black hats stone McDonald windows or a bunch of girls who got by accident into religious neighberhood.
Maybe not deep aspects enough, as your brother who studying gamarah, but sufficient enough.
>And living in Israel exposes you to enough aspects of religion to know "why I can't just press a button in order to get to floor that I want right now". Or why a bunch of guys in black hats stone McDonald windows or a bunch of girls who got by accident into religious neighberhood.
It's very surface level and not sufficient for a discussion on the technicalities of a religion. It's exactly taking the word of non-experts because they live beside experts - it doesn't give them more than passing surface level knowledge of the things they experience directly.
>Maybe not deep aspects enough, as your brother who studying gamarah, but sufficient enough.
Again, the whole criticism was that the discussion occurred exactly when the experts were somewhere else, and that the level of discussion was not 'sufficient enough' - so what you have isn't a point of fact, but a point of an opinion that you think it's 'enough' that the person who raise the point disagrees with.
And I agree with them - a discussion on the technicalities of shabbat missing all the people who care enough about shabbat to not be on here is exactly the way to make sure you only have surface level and often entirely wrong discussion. You think it's 'sufficient enough' doesn't make that true - it just means you're not interested in details from the actual experts on the topic. Thats a personal choice you make, but it's only your value judgement as to how much detail you want in the conversation, not a reflection of reality.
I'd say his criticism still stands and your reply to it exactly highlights the criticism as correct.
It's very surface level and not sufficient for a discussion on the technicalities of a religion. It's exactly taking the word of non-experts because they live beside experts - it doesn't give them more than passing surface level knowledge of the things they experience directly.
>Maybe not deep aspects enough, as your brother who studying gamarah, but sufficient enough.
Again, the whole criticism was that the discussion occurred exactly when the experts were somewhere else, and that the level of discussion was not 'sufficient enough' - so what you have isn't a point of fact, but a point of an opinion that you think it's 'enough' that the person who raise the point disagrees with.
And I agree with them - a discussion on the technicalities of shabbat missing all the people who care enough about shabbat to not be on here is exactly the way to make sure you only have surface level and often entirely wrong discussion. You think it's 'sufficient enough' doesn't make that true - it just means you're not interested in details from the actual experts on the topic. Thats a personal choice you make, but it's only your value judgement as to how much detail you want in the conversation, not a reflection of reality.
I'd say his criticism still stands and your reply to it exactly highlights the criticism as correct.
So, just as I wrote, in your opinion not jewish enough to know technicalities. I had very secular friends friends who read gemara for fun and in order to argue about fine points of religion with religious people. Which is most of the time pointless, because unless person learns it they just follow whatever "rabbi of the year/synagogue/etc" says them to do without actually understanding "technicalities" of it.
What you are doing here, it's just a classic orthodox gatekeeping of Judaism which causes many people completely turn off away from it.
What you are doing here, it's just a classic orthodox gatekeeping of Judaism which causes many people completely turn off away from it.
>o, just as I wrote, in your opinion not jewish enough to know technicalities.
No, now you're strawmanning. I didn't say 'not jewish enough' - I said there's a difference between people who study the laws 'religiously' and spend huge amounts of time on it, and people who are largely culturally jewish and haven't invested the same time.
It's not a question of 'jewish enough' its a question of time spent acquiring knowledge.
>I had very secular friends friends who read gemara for fun and in order to argue about fine points of religion with religious people.
My bet is even then, they put in less time then someone for whom it guides their entire life and who is interested in studying it.
>Which is most of the time pointless, because unless person learns it they just follow whatever "rabbi of the year/synagogue/etc" says them to do without actually understanding "technicalities" of it.
That's not really how it works.
>What you are doing here, it's just a classic orthodox gatekeeping of Judaism which causes many people completely turn off away from it.
No, what I'm doing is differentiating between different levels of knowledge. People who are jewish are jewish. This has nothing to do with that. There are jewish law experts at the vatican who can probably do a lot better job many orthodox jews. It's a question of knowledge and time spent acquiring knowledge. Knowing the limits of your knowledge and not claiming expertise when you have none is a pretty fundamental character trait to me.
No, now you're strawmanning. I didn't say 'not jewish enough' - I said there's a difference between people who study the laws 'religiously' and spend huge amounts of time on it, and people who are largely culturally jewish and haven't invested the same time.
It's not a question of 'jewish enough' its a question of time spent acquiring knowledge.
>I had very secular friends friends who read gemara for fun and in order to argue about fine points of religion with religious people.
My bet is even then, they put in less time then someone for whom it guides their entire life and who is interested in studying it.
>Which is most of the time pointless, because unless person learns it they just follow whatever "rabbi of the year/synagogue/etc" says them to do without actually understanding "technicalities" of it.
That's not really how it works.
>What you are doing here, it's just a classic orthodox gatekeeping of Judaism which causes many people completely turn off away from it.
No, what I'm doing is differentiating between different levels of knowledge. People who are jewish are jewish. This has nothing to do with that. There are jewish law experts at the vatican who can probably do a lot better job many orthodox jews. It's a question of knowledge and time spent acquiring knowledge. Knowing the limits of your knowledge and not claiming expertise when you have none is a pretty fundamental character trait to me.
You started with "only observant jews understand intricacies of jewish law" and graduated with "only people that dedicate their life to it understand technicalities". pick one.
in case it's former, it's not much different from me saying that me eating a hamburger makes me expert in cattle ranching and meat processing. in case it's the later, there is so many different interpretation of everything in Judaism, that it really doesn't matter. kudos to your brother learning it in depth, but in yeshiva next door students may have very different beliefs about "maalit shabat" based on very same technicalities.
>>Which is most of the time pointless, because unless person learns it they just follow whatever "rabbi of the year/synagogue/etc" says them to do without actually understanding "technicalities" of it.
>That's not really how it works.
This is literally how it works for majority of observant people of any given religion.
>>What you are doing here, it's just a classic orthodox gatekeeping of Judaism which causes many people completely turn off away from it.
>No, what I'm doing is differentiating between different levels of knowledge. People who are jewish are jewish. This has nothing to do with that. There are jewish law experts at the vatican who can probably do a lot better job many orthodox jews. It's a question of knowledge and time spent acquiring knowledge. Knowing the limits of your knowledge and not claiming expertise when you have none is a pretty fundamental character trait to me.
Those Jewish laws that have experts in vatican and that is studied day and night in yeshivas been hundreds of years of years old and written in different realities. It's frequently proclaimed that Judaism is adaptive to realities of the world. But when it tries to adapt to modern life ( Reform Judaism for example), orthodox jews claim that reforms are not jews enough (or not jews at all) and that what they practice is wrong. Gatekeeping 101. At same time, they are unable to figure out common kashrut "standard"
>>Which is most of the time pointless, because unless person learns it they just follow whatever "rabbi of the year/synagogue/etc" says them to do without actually understanding "technicalities" of it.
>That's not really how it works.
This is literally how it works for majority of observant people of any given religion.
>>What you are doing here, it's just a classic orthodox gatekeeping of Judaism which causes many people completely turn off away from it.
>No, what I'm doing is differentiating between different levels of knowledge. People who are jewish are jewish. This has nothing to do with that. There are jewish law experts at the vatican who can probably do a lot better job many orthodox jews. It's a question of knowledge and time spent acquiring knowledge. Knowing the limits of your knowledge and not claiming expertise when you have none is a pretty fundamental character trait to me.
Those Jewish laws that have experts in vatican and that is studied day and night in yeshivas been hundreds of years of years old and written in different realities. It's frequently proclaimed that Judaism is adaptive to realities of the world. But when it tries to adapt to modern life ( Reform Judaism for example), orthodox jews claim that reforms are not jews enough (or not jews at all) and that what they practice is wrong. Gatekeeping 101. At same time, they are unable to figure out common kashrut "standard"
I let this sit for a little while to think about it, and I realize that you're arguing with someone else using me as a proxy. I never gatekept anything, I never said anything about 'not jewish enough', this is all you projecting something on to my arguments because you don't like that someone else might know more than you about it because its more important in their lives.
and I say that as a non-practicing anything.
You're making a lot of assertions I never made, making claims that are totally bunk but not worth the time to engage in, and overall just accusing me of 'gatekeeping' because I acknowledge the reality that people who think shabbat is important know the most about shabbat.
You started this engagement looking to cast your unhappiness with someone else on to me, and this post is more of that. Differing levels of specialization and knowledge exist, and acknowledging that isn't gatekeeping - it's basic reality. You can deny it if you like - no skin off my nose. But it means I don't really care what you have to say - your knowledge of shabbat doesn't matter and you're not a specialist, and your claims that because you have some friends who studied for a while (as if that makes them equal to people who study it for their whole lives) makes this knowledge equal is also bunk. Your points about people asking their rabbis is again, not interesting, because the people asking their rabbis questions are generally about practical issues of shabbat or kashrut, not about studying the laws and knowing the background.
You're using my as some kind of target for your existing frustration with orthodox-reform problems, and I'm not either and don't care about your personal hangups.
Orthodox jews tend to know significantly more about jewish law. Get over it.
and I say that as a non-practicing anything.
You're making a lot of assertions I never made, making claims that are totally bunk but not worth the time to engage in, and overall just accusing me of 'gatekeeping' because I acknowledge the reality that people who think shabbat is important know the most about shabbat.
You started this engagement looking to cast your unhappiness with someone else on to me, and this post is more of that. Differing levels of specialization and knowledge exist, and acknowledging that isn't gatekeeping - it's basic reality. You can deny it if you like - no skin off my nose. But it means I don't really care what you have to say - your knowledge of shabbat doesn't matter and you're not a specialist, and your claims that because you have some friends who studied for a while (as if that makes them equal to people who study it for their whole lives) makes this knowledge equal is also bunk. Your points about people asking their rabbis is again, not interesting, because the people asking their rabbis questions are generally about practical issues of shabbat or kashrut, not about studying the laws and knowing the background.
You're using my as some kind of target for your existing frustration with orthodox-reform problems, and I'm not either and don't care about your personal hangups.
Orthodox jews tend to know significantly more about jewish law. Get over it.
> What’s the meaning of „the Sabbath prohibition against operating electrical devices“?
The point is about the act of creation. Creation is the key point in just about all the laws. Turning on/off a switch, with intent, is an act of creation. Be it light, a spark, heat, or moving an elevator. Intent increases the severity of an action surely. Bumping into a light and turning it off, as long as it lacks intention, is more of an "oops, my bad" but you can't accidentally bump into it again. And if it's a common occurrence, you probably should address that issue since you know it will happen (you can't set someone up to fail).
> ... might be indistinguishable from the perspective of the user...
And yes, perspective matters, which is one of the reasons many observant avoid it. If you see someone in front of an elevator (or TV, for that matter), an outside observer would assume you're pressing buttons and breaking the law. Since others may not know about your clever work-around, it's better to avoid it, so they don't see you getting the benefits of the work-around and then doing it directly themselves. This avoids others saying "I saw an observant guy get in the elevator and part of an elevator is pressing buttons, so pressing buttons must be OK".
The door sensors of elevators are another problem. On many with a shabbat mode, they only activate right before closing the door, but it is easy to make a mistake and the doors will re-open. This is another reason they are avoided by many if possible.
> telling a liftboy where to go seems to be ok...
Telling a liftboy is not okay. You can't order someone to do something that they wouldn't have done on their own that you aren't permitted to do yourself. If you're forbidden from turning on a light, asking someone to do it turns them into your agent, which is the same as doing it yourself. But there, like many things, is a work around. If you handed someone a book for them to read, and it was dark, you know they will want to turn on the light. But since you're not asking them to turn on the light, you're asking them to read a book -- if they turn on the light, you have no agency in that action.
In the case of a lift boy or attendant, if you walked into the elevator and said something like "I live on the 7th floor" it's debatable if you intend for the person to press the button. If their job is to press the button, then it is an issue, if it is a non-employee, it's probably less of an issue. Even here, there are nuances like intent and context. If you're younger or more healthy, it's probably better to take the stairs. If you're in a high-rise and even healthy people would have issues taking the stairs, it's probably more permissible.
Then, even in a high-rise, if you're going down (which is easier) then maybe the context would be different enough were the same circumstances that permitted you to use it going up aren't available for going down!
As mentioned by others, the circumstances and context really matter along with the perspective of yourself and those around you. That is why there have been countless books and discussions on some seemingly simple matters.
The point is about the act of creation. Creation is the key point in just about all the laws. Turning on/off a switch, with intent, is an act of creation. Be it light, a spark, heat, or moving an elevator. Intent increases the severity of an action surely. Bumping into a light and turning it off, as long as it lacks intention, is more of an "oops, my bad" but you can't accidentally bump into it again. And if it's a common occurrence, you probably should address that issue since you know it will happen (you can't set someone up to fail).
> ... might be indistinguishable from the perspective of the user...
And yes, perspective matters, which is one of the reasons many observant avoid it. If you see someone in front of an elevator (or TV, for that matter), an outside observer would assume you're pressing buttons and breaking the law. Since others may not know about your clever work-around, it's better to avoid it, so they don't see you getting the benefits of the work-around and then doing it directly themselves. This avoids others saying "I saw an observant guy get in the elevator and part of an elevator is pressing buttons, so pressing buttons must be OK".
The door sensors of elevators are another problem. On many with a shabbat mode, they only activate right before closing the door, but it is easy to make a mistake and the doors will re-open. This is another reason they are avoided by many if possible.
> telling a liftboy where to go seems to be ok...
Telling a liftboy is not okay. You can't order someone to do something that they wouldn't have done on their own that you aren't permitted to do yourself. If you're forbidden from turning on a light, asking someone to do it turns them into your agent, which is the same as doing it yourself. But there, like many things, is a work around. If you handed someone a book for them to read, and it was dark, you know they will want to turn on the light. But since you're not asking them to turn on the light, you're asking them to read a book -- if they turn on the light, you have no agency in that action.
In the case of a lift boy or attendant, if you walked into the elevator and said something like "I live on the 7th floor" it's debatable if you intend for the person to press the button. If their job is to press the button, then it is an issue, if it is a non-employee, it's probably less of an issue. Even here, there are nuances like intent and context. If you're younger or more healthy, it's probably better to take the stairs. If you're in a high-rise and even healthy people would have issues taking the stairs, it's probably more permissible.
Then, even in a high-rise, if you're going down (which is easier) then maybe the context would be different enough were the same circumstances that permitted you to use it going up aren't available for going down!
As mentioned by others, the circumstances and context really matter along with the perspective of yourself and those around you. That is why there have been countless books and discussions on some seemingly simple matters.
> In the case of a lift boy or attendant, if you walked into the elevator and said something like "I live on the 7th floor" it's debatable if you intend for the person to press the button.
Isn't this a little like arguing that by telling someone I know is a hitman a physical description of a target and where a large pot of money is buried I haven't intended for him to carry out a hit? I don't think that would hold up in court (especially if it could be shown that this was an established practice for setting up a hit).
Do religious laws work differently?
Isn't this a little like arguing that by telling someone I know is a hitman a physical description of a target and where a large pot of money is buried I haven't intended for him to carry out a hit? I don't think that would hold up in court (especially if it could be shown that this was an established practice for setting up a hit).
Do religious laws work differently?
>and where a large pot of money is buried
This is obviously the problem here. When you say to a gentile "it's dark in here", you're not actually telling them that you want them to turn on the light for you, when they do so it's their choice entirely. If you said "Anyone who turns on the lights will be paid", that would actually be prohibited. I think the following article is pretty good (https://www.halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Summary_of_Amir...).
This is obviously the problem here. When you say to a gentile "it's dark in here", you're not actually telling them that you want them to turn on the light for you, when they do so it's their choice entirely. If you said "Anyone who turns on the lights will be paid", that would actually be prohibited. I think the following article is pretty good (https://www.halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Summary_of_Amir...).
Do emergency services work on Shabbat?
If their apartment catches on fire would a very orthodox person be allowed to use an extinguisher / carry out some of their belongings?
If their apartment catches on fire would a very orthodox person be allowed to use an extinguisher / carry out some of their belongings?
Sure, there is a principle called Pikuach Nefesh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh) (literal translation - watching over the soul) which means that anything that endangers people's lives is more important than Shabbat. You can certainly drive to a hospital or call 911 or whatever if it's a matter of life or death or an emergency.
Not just Shabbat:
"Pikuach nefesh ... is the principle in Jewish law that the preservation of human life overrides virtually any other religious rule."
"Pikuach nefesh ... is the principle in Jewish law that the preservation of human life overrides virtually any other religious rule."
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed answer!
Maybe facial detection post covid masking would allow the elevators to smartly drop off passengers but this whole concept of having automatic processes violates the rule of making "strangers within your gates from working".
See also: kosher-for-Passover Coca Cola
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/23/us/23religion.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/23/us/23religion.html
How does sabbath work in space?
If you are not on Earth, but it is Saturday on Earth, is it sabbath?
If you are not on Earth, but it is Saturday on Earth, is it sabbath?
Not sure about the exact rule, but I believe Jewish astronauts use the time zone of the place they launched from.
What if they settle on Mars?
This is very much an open question in halacha. I'd assume they'd use Mars time for sunrise/sunset, but how the calendar would work I have no idea. Halacha is very earth-centric and I don't know what it would look like in space.
This is a great question, not just in space but also very far up north where it doesn't always have a sunrise and sunset. I don't remember exactly what the answer was, but I do remember reading something good about it. Maybe I'll go look for it.
Beyond shabbat, there are other interesting ramifications for making when to make brachot, time based positive commitments, etc.
Think about the Jews that were on American Samoa when they skipped Friday and changed to Saturday (moving the international date line) so that they matched with the rest of Samoa...
What a waste of electricity for a stupid religion.
As a non-observant jewish person that used to live in Israel - I agree.
It's a total nightmare.
It's a total nightmare.
Please don't speculate on what's allowed and what's not. See an authoritative source like https://www.zomet.org.il/eng/
And also, many Jews don't hold that Shabbat Elevators are kosher. There's debate within the community. I take the stairs.
And also, many Jews don't hold that Shabbat Elevators are kosher. There's debate within the community. I take the stairs.
> see an authoritative source
> There's debate within the community
It's a bit like if someone says something about how "quantum mechanics means that your consciousness can alter reality" and you said "that's not what it means" and they said "okay then what is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics" and you said "it's complicated and there are different opinions" like just because there's debate doesn't mean all opinions are equally authoritative.
Very common in Judaism. As we like to say, "two jews, three opinions."
I thought it was "10 Jews, 11 opinions"?
See, we can't even agree on the wording of the expression that describes how much we disagree about things! :P
See, we can't even agree on the wording of the expression that describes how much we disagree about things! :P