posted
As far as I understand it, Conservative Jews have rejected rabbinic authority in one area, or at least a few areas, whereas Orthodox Jews have maintained their obedience to rabbinic authority in all areas, including areas wehere Conservative Jews do not. Is that a correct statement?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I am baffled by the anger towards the Conservative movement. I think it's hard to argue that they are not "less halakhically correct," follow the law less strictly. Almost with exception, Conservative Jews follow fewer commandments and follow them less strictly than the Modern Orthodox. There are exceptions, and I actually know several. But in general, I think the Conservative are "less observant." And I would no problems with efforts to gently and lovingly instructing them in mitzvot, and hoping that many chose to join Modern Orthodox shuls.
However, I think it is simply incorrect to say that the serve no purpose. I think that a very large majority of Americans, if denied the option of a Conservative synagogue, would simply not go any. While there is probably a certain percentage that is simply ignorant of the reasons behind certain Jewish practices, there is also a fair number that know and chose to reject for whatever reason. Whether the rejection is justified is another topic, and really an issue, I believe, between a Jew and G-d. It is not for me to judge.
Anyway, I think one important role of the Conservative synagogues is illustrated on this thread. Families that would have left Judiasm completely stay, and their children maintain their Jewish identity, become drawn to investigate more observant practices and chose to adopt them. In addition, attendance in a Conservative synagogue gives a general familiarity with many Jewish practices, including a general ability to read Hebrew. Someone "investigating" a Modern Orthodox synagogue will not feel completely out of place, and will be that more comfortable and willing to go back again.
Conservative Jews do educate their children and themselves in Judiasm. If during a Torah study they read the scripture, they are learning something. As long as they are not trying to actively prove to Torah wrong and treating it with respect, they are learning about the law. I have a hard time believing that time spent trying to find meaning in the Torah is anything but positive.
This whole argument falls apart if you believe that if there were no Conservative shuls, everyone would become Orthodox. And there is really no way to tell, just a general feeling.
I appologize if part of this post is unclear, I tried as much as possible to make it generally accessible.
I guess that is the real debate. Is being a secular Jew better then being a Conservative or even Reform? I had an Orthodox Jew once tell me that the Reform and Conservative movements is worse then Jews for Jesus because they are accepted more.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I disagree with that statement, btw. They have rejected what was called, up until the Conservative movement came into being, "rabbinic authority". In its entirety.
They substituted something different, but gave it the name of what they'd gotten rid of, because they wanted to believe that they hadn't really cast off something so critical.
I know I'll probably get reported on this post as well, but it's the truth.
There are many different views on different things within Judaism. But they're almost always minor. Lubavitch Hassidim won't eat matzaballs on Passover, because they have a custom to avoid getting matza wet. Sephardic Jews will eat certain types of legumes on Passover that Ashkenazic Jews won't eat. None of these things came into being for the express purpose of being able to fit in better in a new country.
David Gerrold has a series called The War Against the Chtorr. Four books in the series have been published. Gerrold has been yanking our chains on the remaining books for years and years now.
But it's his series. And I may be impatient, but if I were to say, "Forget this, and forget Gerrold; I want those stories," and write my own continuation/conclusion to the series, I'd simply be fooling myself. Because ultimately, he's the author. I don't get to blow him off and take off in my own direction simply because I don't like how slow he's being.
They don't like the decision making process in Jewish law. Okay. But honestly, if they were really "fixing things", as they claim, wouldn't you think there'd be maybe a single instance in more than 100 years where they decided to be more strict about something? But all of their changes are to eliminate this law or that.
In Orthodox Judaism, by contrast, that's not true at all. Orthodox Jews invented a type of switch that can be used on Shabbat, in cases of special need (such as hospitals) without violating the law. The Conservative method would have simply been to say, "There's a special need? Go ahead and use a regular switch."
It's a different focus. We know that we can use a regular switch if we have to. But we care about minimizing such violations, because we know that God commanded us for a reason. They see that there's an excuse to use a switch, and say, "Let's do it". It's a different focus and a different attitude.
How you get there is a major part of whether you've gotten to the right place in Judaism.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I guess that is the real debate. Is being a secular Jew better then being a Conservative or even Reform? I had an Orthodox Jew once tell me that the Reform and Conservative movements is worse then Jews for Jesus because they are accepted more.
Well, on the one hand, the J4J apparently do believe, at least, that God gave us the written part of the Torah at Sinai. On the other hand, they're an intentionally deceitful group that exists to trick Jews into converting to Christianity. So I wouldn't say that.
But it's a judgement call. In Israel, other than a very few Conservative and Reform imports from America, the synagogue that secular Jews don't go to is an Orthodox one. When they feel the need for something, that's where they go. Would that happen in the US? I don't know. I do know that there's a fundamental value to truth, even if less than that might be useful in the short term.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are many different views on different things within Judaism. But they're almost always minor.
It's worth noting that "minor" in this context is a very amusing word, given that we bring up light switches shortly thereafter. It's not at all uncommon -- even within Judaism -- for people to disagree strongly on not only what things are "minor," but who gets to decide which things are "minor."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Of course, this link is a classic example of the attitude I've seen from most Conservative Jews. I don't know whether the author of this blog is Conservative, Reform, or just plain secular, but what he sees as "lunacy", we see as actually making our best effort to do what God wants us to do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: But it's a judgement call. In Israel, other than a very few Conservative and Reform imports from America, the synagogue that secular Jews don't go to is an Orthodox one. When they feel the need for something, that's where they go. Would that happen in the US? I don't know. I do know that there's a fundamental value to truth, even if less than that might be useful in the short term.
I would say most secular Jews in the US would never go anywhere near an Orthodox synagogue if they felt a spiratual need. Worse I think most would end up in a church. I think the two movements fulfill a spiritual need for those that would have absolutely nothing without them. I understand the Orthodox just see it as a way to get permission for not following the proper lifestyle, but most Reform and non religious/secular are born into it and don't even know what they should be doing. The language barrier alone can be a problem for those not knowledgeable in Hebrew.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are many different views on different things within Judaism. But they're almost always minor.
It's worth noting that "minor" in this context is a very amusing word, given that we bring up light switches shortly thereafter.
I'm not sure I get what part of that you think is amusing. No Orthodox Jew will flip a lightswitch on Shabbat. Not unless there's an extremely serious need. I once called 911 on a Friday night. If a doctor needs to use something electrical for a patient, that's also another situation. But these aren't areas of difference among Orthodox Jews.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's not at all uncommon -- even within Judaism -- for people to disagree strongly on not only what things are "minor," but who gets to decide which things are "minor."
Not really. Not unless you count anything that any Jew says as "Judaism". In which case you could include Karl Marx, Alan Greenspan, Noam Chomsky and Scarlett Johanssen as determiners of what "Judaism" is.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: starLisa:"But we care about minimizing such violations, because we know that God commanded us for a reason."
What is that reason?
I don't know. I know some possible reasons for some of God's commandments. But I don't know for sure that they are the actual reasons, I don't know for sure that there aren't additional reasons I'm not aware of...
Everything has a reason. We think God has a plan for the world, and that He gave us the Torah in order that this plan should come to fruition. As to what the plan is, exactly? Well, I suppose I'll find out eventually, either in this life or the next.
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: Most of my questions about Judaism are Why questions, and the above is only one of them.
And I know my answer couldn't have been very satisfying. I'm sorry about that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not unless you count anything that any Jew says as "Judaism"
I'm willing to consider anything that a self-identified "observant" Jew says to be his form of Judaism -- and by "observant" here I mean "believes himself to be upholding or aware of the tenets of his faith." I extend the same courtesy to Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists.
These things may or may not be any specific sect's specific doctrine; in some cases they are, and in some cases they aren't. I think it's rather arrogant, however, for people to presume that they're entitled to insist otherwise.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: But it's a judgement call. In Israel, other than a very few Conservative and Reform imports from America, the synagogue that secular Jews don't go to is an Orthodox one. When they feel the need for something, that's where they go. Would that happen in the US? I don't know. I do know that there's a fundamental value to truth, even if less than that might be useful in the short term.
I would say most secular Jews in the US would never go anywhere near an Orthodox synagogue if they felt a spiratual need. Worse I think most would end up in a church. I think the two movements fulfill a spiritual need for those that would have absolutely nothing without them. I understand the Orthodox just see it as a way to get permission for not following the proper lifestyle, but most Reform and non religious/secular are born into it and don't even know what they should be doing. The language barrier alone can be a problem for those not knowledgeable in Hebrew.
I know. It's a serious problem.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not unless you count anything that any Jew says as "Judaism"
I'm willing to consider anything that a self-identified "observant" Jew says to be his form of Judaism. I extend the same courtesy to Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists.
See, we take it a little more seriously than that. We were told stuff by God. You may not believe that to be the case, but we know it was. And we have a responsibility to do what God told us to.
I'd have a lot less trouble if the movements were to declare themselves separate religions.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: These things may or may not be any specific sect's specific doctrine; in some cases they are, and in some cases they aren't. I think it's rather arrogant, however, for people to presume that they're entitled to insist otherwise.
If it is, then it's justified arrogance. I refer you back to my example of me trying to finish David Gerrold's Chtorr series. If I want to write a book about the Earth being invaded by a hostile organism, that's fine. But if I call it "the continuation/conclusion of David Gerrold's Chtorr series", it's not fine at all. And if Gerrold tells me that I'm barking up the wrong tree, or just plain barking, it may be arrogant, but it's legitimate.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, perhaps now you can understand why some Christians were a little perturbed by your willingness to declare when Christianity stopped being just another "Jewish sect" (as you put it) and started being Christian.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: starLisa, perhaps now you can understand why some Christians were a little perturbed by your willingness to declare when Christianity stopped being just another "jewish sect" (as you put it) and started being Christian.
Did you have the impression that I wasn't aware of that?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOTS of sects claim that they were told stuff by God, and that their specific sect knows the REAL truth -- while all the other sects that claim to be part of the "same" religion are just deluded and/or endangering their souls.
Would you presume to claim that the Catholics are "real" Christians, and the Mormons are not? Would you argue that Baptists are just following Lutheran law improperly? They all claim to have been told stuff by God to roughly similar effect.
Historically, Judaism's had about as many offshoots and non-traditional interpretations as Christianity. The scholarship of many of its more devoted members is generally exceptional, but that has not protected it from very wide divergences of thought, many of which have in fact wound up producing different religions.
While individual sects may believe -- and may NEED to believe -- that they have a monopoly on the Truth, that doesn't actually mean they're any more right than the next guys.
---------
quote: And if Gerrold tells me that I'm barking up the wrong tree, or just plain barking, it may be arrogant, but it's legitimate.
And if Gerrold called you up to tell you this, would you point to his books and say "nowhere in the text does it say (assuming you discount the copyright notice, which of course had a different author) that I can't do this, so you don't get to participate in this discussion?"
I recall a fable being bandied about recently that went just that way.
Seriously, I suspect MOST incorrect interpretations of MOST religious doctrine could be cleared up if God saw fit to correct them when they popped up and became popular. That He chooses not to do so suggests to me that He's fine with 'em.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not unless you count anything that any Jew says as "Judaism".
And why it gets tiresome for Christians to have to account for everything any Christian says or does.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Lisa, I thought you were going to lower the flames.
I know that I'm supposed to obey the laws of the Sabbath, and I do to the best of my ability. However, I will also confess that I violate those same laws every Shabbos. Why? Not because I want to or because I think the rules don't apply to me. But because I have a good reason and excuse to do so.
My husband has severe disabilities, and must use a ventilator and other respiratory equipment in order to survive. Every Shabbos, I take him from his bed and place him in his power wheelchair and turn it on. I place him on the ventilator, and you'd better believe that I turn it on! I administer any respiratory treatments that he needs. All these things are violations. I know that they are. But they are justified because the are life sustaining.
My husband and I have known Jews who have a problem with this situation. We have a problem with THEM. We have consulted our rabbi and know that we are doing our best.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Hey, Lisa, I thought you were going to lower the flames.
I know that I'm supposed to obey the laws of the Sabbath, and I do to the best of my ability. However, I will also confess that I violate those same laws every Shabbos. Why? Not because I want to or because I think the rules don't apply to me. But because I have a good reason and excuse to do so.
My husband has severe disabilities, and must use a ventilator and other respiratory equipment in order to survive. Every Shabbos, I take him from his bed and place him in his power wheelchair and turn it on. I place him on the ventilator, and you'd better believe that I turn it on! I administer any respiratory treatments that he needs. All these things are violations. I know that they are. But they are justified because the are life sustaining.
My husband and I have known Jews who have a problem with this situation. We have a problem with THEM. We have consulted our rabbi and know that we are doing our best.
Anyone who has a problem with that type of violation has to seriously question their own morality.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: So Tante, these people who have a problem with the situation--what would they have you do?
They would have him stay in bed all Shabbos, every Shabbos (and holiday), remain on the same ventilator that he uses overnight (he has another one on the back of his wheelchair), and I would only touch the ventilator if there was an urgent life-threatening need.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to get examples of differences between Jews who believe they are properly following the commandments, I invite you any family meal with my Lubavitch relatives (the black hat folk) and my Modern Orthodox parents.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Of course, this link is a classic example of the attitude I've seen from most Conservative Jews. I don't know whether the author of this blog is Conservative, Reform, or just plain secular, but what he sees as "lunacy", we see as actually making our best effort to do what God wants us to do.
My favorite item I saw in Israel was the Shabbos elevator in the hotel I was at.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rabbis differ on how much of a delay is required; the Star-K rabbinical authority, Moshe Heinemann, authorizes a 5-second lag. To be on the safe side, Ottensoser increased the delay to 15 seconds and a random wait of as much as 10 seconds. Why? "An indirect action is one where you can't predict what's going to happen," he says.
Wow. This strikes me as being remarkably lame. A TRULY indirect action, by this definition, would be a situation in which you flipped the switch and the light came on a third of the time, and a third of the time it didn't, and another third of the time it popped out a cracker from a little slot beneath it. (With, of course, a suitably random adjustment of odds that would happen weekly.)
Contrast this with something non-kosher from the same link:
quote: Opening a fridge seems like a harmless action without consequence. But every time you open that door, you let warm air in and cold air out, changing the temperature inside. So the compressor switches on to compensate, and you've effectively turned on the appliance and engaged in work. Mechalel shabbos - you've desecrated the Sabbath.
So making someone wait a random interval is sufficiently indirect, but causing a compressor to turn on by the otherwise unrelated action of opening a fridge is NOT indirect enough? What's especially baffling is THIS, from the elevator link:
quote:Rabbi Zack used to say it's like having a Shabbat candle by a window and opening the window. A wind may come along and blow the candle out, but you didn't directly make it happen.
So the wind that transfers warm air into your fridge, thus activating the condensor, is DIRECTLY triggered by opening the fridge -- but the wind that blows out your candle is an indirect force that is NOT triggered by opening a window.
quote:Wow. This strikes me as being remarkably lame. A TRULY indirect action, by this definition, would be a situation in which you flipped the switch and the light came on a third of the time, and a third of the time it didn't, and another third of the time it popped out a cracker from a little slot beneath it. (With, of course, a suitably random adjustment of odds that would happen weekly.)
Tom, this reminds me of the celiac discussion concerning wheat wafers at Catholic Communion.
There's nothing in the Sabbath rules that makes flipping a switch immoral in and of itself. Immorality results because doing so on the Sabbath violates a commandment given by God. And if God has created a system for interpreting His commandments to answer the thousands of individual questions that arise, then following those interpretations is still following those commandments, and hence immoral.
This isn't a practical question. It's a legal and moral one.
rivka posted something a long time ago about how all the different mitzvos are gifts from God that giver an opportunity to do good. Even eating is given over to contemplate God's will. I believe it was rivka who commented, also long ago, that honest intellectual wrangling over seemingly little things, all with the intent of following God's will, is a good act. If I recall correctly, one of God's commands is to interpret his commands, so simply being over-careful and going beyond what is required would not be the best way to follow God's commands. Rather, one is supposed to honestly investigate the situation, consulting appropriate authority, and arrive at the correct answer.
(My apologies if I am misremembering. I'd love to have my recollection corrected if wrong and to see further expansion on this topic.)
New topic. From the article Tom referenced:
quote:39 activities are off-limits to those complying with the Torah's fourth commandment
Quick question on how mitzvos are counted: I remember seeing that there are 600 and something individual mitzvos. Are those 39 prohibited activities each counted as separate items in that 600+ item list, or are they all part of the single item relating to keeping the Sabbath holy?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are 613 mitzvos, and 39 types of activities forbidden on Shabbos. The commandment to observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy includes all 39 activities -- they don't count as separate commandments. It is what was decided that "Don't do work" means in a practical application.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so "the commandment to observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy [which] includes all 39 activities" counts as 1 of 613?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: LOTS of sects claim that they were told stuff by God, and that their specific sect knows the REAL truth -- while all the other sects that claim to be part of the "same" religion are just deluded and/or endangering their souls.
Um... so? The existence of conflicting claims means that all claims are false? I'm trying to think which classical fallacy that would be. But I suspect that it's too modern.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Would you presume to claim that the Catholics are "real" Christians, and the Mormons are not?
"Presume"? Well, if I really cared about the subject, then sure, I'd "presume" to make a judgement. But I'd make sure to educate myself first.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Would you argue that Baptists are just following Lutheran law improperly? They all claim to have been told stuff by God to roughly similar effect.
But they're wrong. And there is a fundamental difference between what I have to say about a religion that didn't break away from Judaism and a religion that did. You realize that, don't you?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Historically, Judaism's had about as many offshoots and non-traditional interpretations as Christianity.
Ah, yes... the halcyon days of the Baal worshippers in Samaria, the Sadducees and Karaites and Sabbateans and Frankists...
They're pretty much gone by now. And we continue merrily along doing what we were supposed to in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The scholarship of many of its more devoted members is generally exceptional, but that has not protected it from very wide divergences of thought, many of which have in fact wound up producing different religions.
"A few of which", and it depends on whether you want to count the modern-day heterodox movements as different religions. If you don't, then it shouldn't even be "a few if which", but rather "one of which".
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: While individual sects may believe -- and may NEED to believe -- that they have a monopoly on the Truth, that doesn't actually mean they're any more right than the next guys.
And the existence of contrary claims doesn't speak to the truth or falsity of any of the claims.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And if Gerrold tells me that I'm barking up the wrong tree, or just plain barking, it may be arrogant, but it's legitimate.
And if Gerrold called you up to tell you this, would you point to his books and say "nowhere in the text does it say (assuming you discount the copyright notice, which of course had a different author) that I can't do this, so you don't get to participate in this discussion?"
Nope. But then, I wouldn't do something that dishonest to begin with. It'd make me feel bad about myself.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Seriously, I suspect MOST incorrect interpretations of MOST religious doctrine could be cleared up if God saw fit to correct them when they popped up and became popular. That He chooses not to do so suggests to me that He's fine with 'em.
Or more likely that He's already told us what the truth is, and has also made it clear that He isn't going to pop up and nudge us every time we're doing something wrong.
Basically, you're saying that if you were God, you'd correct those who are wrong, and since God isn't doing that, He must be okay with them. Honestly, Tom, do I have to point out what the flaw is in that argument?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: starLisa, you haven't replied to my email yet, your making me feel bad and sa.... *breaks down crying*
Dude, I'm sorry. Your e-mail is in my Eudora at home. I'm at work using a webmail thingie, so I don't even have your mail here to reply to.
And I've been going home, taking Vicodin, and crashing. I threw out my back last Wednesday and again on Sunday night. If anyone has a spare spine lying around that they aren't using, I'm in the market. Measurements on request. <sigh>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not unless you count anything that any Jew says as "Judaism".
And why it gets tiresome for Christians to have to account for everything any Christian says or does.
Oh, I'm cool with Christians not having to account for what other Christians say, religious-wise. So long as they stop claiming to be an overwhelming majority. You can't really have it both ways, after all.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Then perhaps you could revisit the thread in question and maybe respond to the arguments presented. Or, you know, do what you actually say you would: "But I'd make sure to educate myself first."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Hey, Lisa, I thought you were going to lower the flames.
Um... I'm not? I answered a question. If things are such that answering a question or stating a disagreement is inherently flameful, then there's a serious problem.
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I know that I'm supposed to obey the laws of the Sabbath, and I do to the best of my ability. However, I will also confess that I violate those same laws every Shabbos. Why? Not because I want to or because I think the rules don't apply to me. But because I have a good reason and excuse to do so.
My husband has severe disabilities, and must use a ventilator and other respiratory equipment in order to survive. Every Shabbos, I take him from his bed and place him in his power wheelchair and turn it on. I place him on the ventilator, and you'd better believe that I turn it on! I administer any respiratory treatments that he needs. All these things are violations. I know that they are. But they are justified because the are life sustaining.
Esther, those aren't violations. Certainly the ventilator one isn't. Not only is it permissible, but it's required. Why do you think they're violations?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Esther, those aren't violations. Certainly the ventilator one isn't. Not only is it permissible, but it's required. Why do you think they're violations?
Well, the electrical switch thingy.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: From starLisa's first link:
quote: Rabbis differ on how much of a delay is required; the Star-K rabbinical authority, Moshe Heinemann, authorizes a 5-second lag. To be on the safe side, Ottensoser increased the delay to 15 seconds and a random wait of as much as 10 seconds. Why? "An indirect action is one where you can't predict what's going to happen," he says.
Wow. This strikes me as being remarkably lame.
Nice. Do I get to complain now? There's a difference between something being lame and you lacking understanding.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: A TRULY indirect action, by this definition,
The only definitions that matter in this context are those defined in Jewish law. Not those that you presume to be operative. Tom, do you see the difference? Any discussion about this stuff in translation is necessarily going to be a little inaccurate, because the words we use have specific definitions.
The Torah says that a "leper" is "unclean". But the "leper" in question has nothing to do with what we call a leper today, and the term "unclean" implies that you can wash it and it'll be clean, and that's not accurate either.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Contrast this with something non-kosher from the same link:
quote: Opening a fridge seems like a harmless action without consequence. But every time you open that door, you let warm air in and cold air out, changing the temperature inside. So the compressor switches on to compensate, and you've effectively turned on the appliance and engaged in work. Mechalel shabbos - you've desecrated the Sabbath.
So making someone wait a random interval is sufficiently indirect, but causing a compressor to turn on by the otherwise unrelated action of opening a fridge is NOT indirect enough?
You didn't read carefully enough. Things like the gramma switch are not permissible for every day use. They're for "great need". Turning on a ventilator is a great need. Opening the fridge door is not a great need in most cases.
I wouldn't be allowed to press a key on the electric keyboard thing that kid has. I don't have any need to. It's just as out of bounds for me on Shabbat as a regular keyboard would be.
Context, Tom. Everything has context.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What's especially baffling is THIS, from the elevator link:
quote:Rabbi Zack used to say it's like having a Shabbat candle by a window and opening the window. A wind may come along and blow the candle out, but you didn't directly make it happen.
So the wind that transfers warm air into your fridge, thus activating the condensor, is DIRECTLY triggered by opening the fridge -- but the wind that blows out your candle is an indirect force that is NOT triggered by opening a window.
This is why the word "oy" was invented.
No, this is why the phrase "reading comprehension" was invented. You aren't allowed to have a Shabbat candle by a window and open the window. Except for cases when you are allowed to. Context.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Esther, those aren't violations. Certainly the ventilator one isn't. Not only is it permissible, but it's required. Why do you think they're violations?
Well, the electrical switch thingy.
You can see why it'd be appropriate to get a gramma switch, right? But once you've unhooked him, surely you don't see hooking him back up as a violation, do you?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: A few of which", and it depends on whether you want to count the modern-day heterodox movements as different religions. If you don't, then it shouldn't even be "a few if which", but rather "one of which".
One reason why Conservative and Reform Jews will never declare themselves new faiths is that even Orthodox Jews agree that the majority of them are truly Jewish.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Ok, so "the commandment to observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy [which] includes all 39 activities" counts as 1 of 613?
Well, there's a command to keep the Sabbath day, and there's a command to remember the Sabbath day. One is in the listing of the 10 Commandments in Exodus, and the other is in the list in Deuteronomy.
These two are separate commandments. But the 39 principal categories of melacha (the "work" you're not allowed to do on Shabbat) are just details, and not separate commandments.
And each of the 39 principle categories has subcategories. Here's a good basic overview.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: A few of which", and it depends on whether you want to count the modern-day heterodox movements as different religions. If you don't, then it shouldn't even be "a few if which", but rather "one of which".
One reason why Conservative and Reform Jews will never declare themselves new faiths is that even Orthodox Jews agree that the majority of them are truly Jewish.
You say "never", but you must realize that the conversion issue and the patrilineal descent issue are bringing the day when a majority of Reform Jews aren't actually Jewish a lot closer, and a lot faster, right? It can't keep going in this direction forever and still have the current legal presumption hold, right?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A gramma switch would be inappropriate for life support equipment. I will work the switches with a shinui, of possible, otherwise, I just do what I have to do. Hooking him back up to a ventilator once he is off involves turning off one venitlator and turning on another. In addition, there are safetly alarms that sound that are extinguished by connecting him to the venitlator.
The power wheelchair is his only means of mobility -- he is like totally paralyzed -- and he works it with a sip-and-puff straw in his mouth. He is unable to tolerate a different kind of wheelchair.
For reasons of safety, a gramma switch would be inappropriate for the power wheelchair, as well.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh, I'm cool with Christians not having to account for what other Christians say, religious-wise. So long as they stop claiming to be an overwhelming majority. You can't really have it both ways, after all
When I make such claims, it is generally to counter the absurd idea that Christians are being "marginalized". I do think that, since people who described themselves as Christian are in a large majority in the US, that we have a larger responsibility to "watch our feet". Rather like Gulliver. I think including all of those who claim to be Christian (whether or not I agree with their theology) is appropriate in this context.
If I were saying that because Christians are a majority, we should get to have things our own way...
First, as a proudly card-carrying member of the ACLU, I'm not likely to say such a thing. And second, the folks who do say that are unlikely to want things the way I want them anyhow.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: You say "never", but you must realize that the conversion issue and the patrilineal descent issue are bringing the day when a majority of Reform Jews aren't actually Jewish a lot closer, and a lot faster, right? It can't keep going in this direction forever and still have the current legal presumption hold, right?
Could be true. I guess it depends on just how often this patrilineal descent things comes up, (not to mention if proselytyzing takes hold) and how likely those children end up calling themselves Reform Jews their entire lives. Reform Judaism's official stance may be to accept patrilineal descent, but I still sense a stigma when it comes up without an "official Reform" conversion.
If you are correct perhaps it will become a true Noachide religion.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Things like the gramma switch are not permissible for every day use. They're for "great need". Turning on a ventilator is a great need. Opening the fridge door is not a great need in most cases.
Why, then, is there a cottage industry that produces gramma switches for ovens?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: My husband and I have known Jews who have a problem with this situation. We have a problem with THEM. We have consulted our rabbi and know that we are doing our best.
IMO, anyone who has a problem with what you were told by your rav needs the tip of their nose removed.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So making someone wait a random interval is sufficiently indirect, but causing a compressor to turn on by the otherwise unrelated action of opening a fridge is NOT indirect enough?
I never thought I would say this. Tom, many Orthodox authorities would agree with you . . . well, at least about the fridge. Moreover, I think it's pretty clear that the Star-K guy being interviewed would agree as well:
quote: I ask if he has a Sabbath mode oven at home. "Three of them," he says. How about a Sabbath fridge? He scoffs. Who wants a fridge so high tech that it requires a Sabbath mode? "They're too fancy. Why do I need to know what the temperature is inside my refrigerator? Why do I need a light in my crisper?"
Note that he uses a regular fridge, and thus must not have a problem with open and closing it on Shabbos. (I suspect that other quote was referring to those fancy built-in fridges (Superzero used to have a line, IIRC) that turn on the compressor every time the door is opened. Immediately. I know someone who used to install Shabbos switches to turn exactly that feature off.)
Lisa is also oversimplifying. Using grama as a shinui (best approximation: alteration) is allowed for "great need" situations ONLY for certain categories of things. (I am so not going to start explaining the difference between and implications of d'oraysa, d'rabanan, and minhag yisrael!) For other things, grama is just fine.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: rivka posted something a long time ago about how all the different mitzvos are gifts from God that giver an opportunity to do good. Even eating is given over to contemplate God's will. I believe it was rivka who commented, also long ago, that honest intellectual wrangling over seemingly little things, all with the intent of following God's will, is a good act. If I recall correctly, one of God's commands is to interpret his commands, so simply being over-careful and going beyond what is required would not be the best way to follow God's commands. Rather, one is supposed to honestly investigate the situation, consulting appropriate authority, and arrive at the correct answer.
(My apologies if I am misremembering. I'd love to have my recollection corrected if wrong and to see further expansion on this topic.)
I have no idea if I said all that. If I didn't, can we pretend I did? I certainly agree with it. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first part I mentioned was in a linked article, and I'm almost positive that it was you who posted it. The second I'm less sure of the poster, but I know I read it on Hatrack sometime over a year ago.
Either way, it stuck with me.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
In her OP, Lisa mentioned her dislike of Chanuka songs (which I do not agree with, mostly). I therefore offer a recent release I was apprised of by a blogger. (Hanukkah Rocks, the 14th in the queue, top right.) I don't like all (or even most) of these (except How Do You Spell Channukkahh -- that one I like! ), but clearly many of the haters-of-traditional-Chanuka-music do.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's not at all uncommon -- even within Judaism -- for people to disagree strongly on not only what things are "minor," but who gets to decide which things are "minor."
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Moreover, I think it's pretty clear that the Star-K guy being interviewed would agree as well: ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), but clearly many of the haters-of-traditional-Chanuka-music do.
