Now I’m wondering: why would anyone, of any faith, boil a goat in milk? Sounds like a lousy recipe.
If you’re serious, it was a fertility ritual. The ancient Jews were forbidden to do it, and the concept of “building a hedge around the Law” mentioned earlier meant that the whole concept got extended to separate dishes to be used for dairy and meat, no cheeseburgers, etc.
Regards,
Shodan
Do you have any idea how prevalent OCD is among more observant Jews vs less observant Jews or non-Jews?
This seems to be speculation.
Literally, i can not know that, i have no way of knowing if the meat i am eating did or did not share family with the milk i also have.
There for i would not mix them, when in doubt, don’t.
And the meat is still being heated, and the dairy is melting on it from the heat.
More importantly, the idea is not to figure out how to get rid of the laws, that would be the easy way out, i don’t think God would have any admiration for that.
On the other hand, He might admire one for finding a way to adhere to the law when life has seen fit to do otherwise.
See, you have to try to fulfill each of the laws, if humanly possible
Some are no longer humanly possible at this time for obvious reasons.
This one is completely possible to keep compliance with by making sure not to mix meat and milk in any form.
Anyways, there is a lesson in that law, and it isn’t hey you shouldn’t eat meat and milk together because yea i say so.
It’s partly about having compassion and respect, when you follow it, it is supposed to remind you of that.
Most of the laws, there some kind of lesson in them, something additional.
No one gets to do that, that is like quibbling with the judge that even though you were doing 90 in a 55, because you did not do 100, you were upholding the spirit of the law by showing 10mph restraint.
Neither Judge is going to find it amusing.
Also aside from what Shodan said
There are some other things that go in with that law.
Like that you do not take the animal, and slaughter it in front of its mother.
(You should not slaughter any animal in front of the others, it is cruel)
It is also about having some compassion and respect, even for the animal that was given to you to eat.
Imagine what a human would feel, watching its child taken, and slaughtered and then boiled in the mothers milk.
Even though the animal is not human, if it only felt a fraction of what a human felt, can you imagine?
The chances of beef cattle for a burger being significantly related to a dairy cow from which milk came is so small as to be infinitesimal. The chances that someone preparing supposedly kosher food for you saves some time by mixing implements between dairy and meat would be very real. Yet I’m sure you take the latter risk.
Your behaviour is traditional not logical. Your life would involve less intellectual dishonesty if you just admitted that rather than fanwanking all the time.
Right, I can never tell if the fish or chicken I’m eating shares family with the fish milk or chicken milk I’m drinking.
Where is the fence wrt the eruv?
I spent much of my childhood in the lower east side of manhattan and there was a wire around a Jewish community there and even THAT seemed like a stretch. The way it was explained to me was that the rule about not laboring on the Sabbath was a bit distorted to begin with and this was supposed to bring things back to the mean so you could do things like push your baby carriage in the park, etc.
There has always been a fuzzy line between equity and debt. I used to run into these loans that were loans for tax purposes but equity for religious law purposes. You want to buy a $100 car and you don’t have enough cash to buy it outright, well go to an islamic bank and they will buy the car for $100 and sell it to you for $120 payable in 60 monthly installments of $2/month.
The underlying concern of the usury laws could be addressed by a robust bankruptcy system.
To the contrary, it’s perfectly logical. You’re just fixated myopically on the wrong postulates.
A person who eats at a kosher supervised restaurant and then later discovers a slovenly cook had mixed meat and dairy utensils has committed no wrong.
A person who says, “I am going to create my own set of rules to avoid transgressing G-d’s commandments,” is deliberately disassociating himself from the observant Jewish community. He is, in effect, creating his own parochial system instead of adopting the community system. It’s beyond cavil that there is no risk of mixing meat and dairy if you have a slice of cheese on a chicken sandwich. But there are risks beyond the literal transgression of the mandate to not boil the flesh of the kid in the milk of the mother. Uneducated persons may see you eating cheese on meat and not realize the meat is chicken, and conclude that cheese on meat is not a problem.
The rabbis whose commentary created the Mishnah and the Gemara adopted these rules as methods to avoid not only violating the mitzvah, but any confusion about conduct that might violate the mitzvah. Their rules create a habit that avoids conduct that might stray close. If you eat beef and cheese together because you’re confident that in the United States today there’s zero chance of the two animals that provided that food being related, what will your kids do? And their kids? Will your great-grandchildren, when visiting an isolated farm somewhere, remember to avoid mixing meat and dairy there? Or will your rejection of that rule have started its own tradition of “Who cares?”
To you it’s “fanwanking,” because at the heart of the matter you don’t accept the idea that there is a G-d who made such a covenant with a tribe of people. That’s fine – but there can be no genuine doubt that the Jews believed that they were bound by such a covenant, and they crafted laws to live by it as best they understood the requirements of it.
Emphasis mine.
Thank goodness! 'cause we’ve already got a lot of those!
I don’t believe anyone else has answered this…
For those that live too far to walk to the synagogue, they might drive to schul before the start of the holiday, and leave their cars there until the holiday is over (perhaps staying with friends or relatives for a multi-day holiday). This way they can drive right home after the holiday is over.
Like many other religions, there are some who only go to synagogue/church for “major” holidays, which is why you only see this a few times a year.
Does that mean it’s ok to use things that have resistive or capacitive buttons instead of electromechanical ones?
No spark when you select something on a touchscreen.
Ike Witt:
“Fake” is probably too strong a word.
It took me a while to get through reading Rabbi Feinstein’s ruling, but the summary of it is that the problems are twofold: the main problem is that a place with a population (possibly including passers-through) of 600,000 or more is a “public domain” by the Biblical standard, and therefore an eruv cannot permit carrying therein, and the second is that the bridges of lower Manhattan create a too-wide breach in any hypothetical eruv-wall.
He spends some time discussing the arguments on both pro- and con- sides of these issues, and concludes that while there are arguments to be lenient and allow an eruv, the arguments for being more stringent are, in his opinion, more compelling, and that there is not sufficient need for an eruv that the potential leniencies should be relied upon.
However, it is obvious that the people who constructed this current eruv are relying on the leniencies rather than keeping to Rabbi Feinstein’s ruling to be stringent. It’s not fake, but it does go against the ruling of a rabbi whose prominence in the field of Jewish law during his lifetime was undisputed.
Bricker:
That’s pretty complicated. You can walk throughout the Five Boroughs, I’m pretty sure. You can probably walk some distance into Nassau County, Westchester, and parts of New Jersey just over the bridges (e.g., Elizabeth over the Goethals or the Fort Lee/Englewood area over the George Washington). If the Holland Tunnel is walkable, I’m sure you can walk through Jersey City, and if the Lincoln Tunnel is, Weehawken, but I don’t know if there’s a public walkway through those. The bottom line is that the techum shabbat ends where the man-made habitable (e.g., not utility poles) structures are no longer as close as 70 cubits (roughly 100 feet) apart from one another. Where exactly that point is surrounding New York City, I’m not sure.
txjim:
iamthewalrus:3= :
I do not know if the differences between these technologies and old-style electrical circuits has ever been examined in detail. I suspect that ultimately, even though you are not CREATING a spark, you are still manipulating the flow of electrical “fire”, which is just as forbidden with regular fire as creating it is.
TriPolar:
For a broken leg, that’s not at all necessary. Any condition that poses a danger not just to life but to a limb, even if the danger is only a possibility, is allowable to violate the Sabbath for. I suppose if the doctor is right down the block, then to avoid Sabbath violation that way may still make sense, but as a general principle, that wouldn’t be the case.
F. U. Shakespeare:
That’s because one of the relevant Biblical verses that defines the type of labor that’s forbidden on the Sabbath mentions “active work” - not passively allowing work to occur.
However, that work-around only works if by “removing the barrier” it’s not CERTAIN that the work will occur. The classical Talmudic example of that is that if a deer wanders into a room by way of a door that’s being held open, you can remove the door-holder if that will allow a wind to blow the door closed (thus trapping the deer, something forbidden to intentionally do on the Sabbath), but not if that will automatically cause the door to close, without the help of a random event like wind. The device being discussed probably randomizes the frequency of the dialing so that the person pressing the button to remove the insulator does not necessarily know when the number will actually get dialed. Some rabbis consider this work-around valid (i.e., the equivalent of the wind being a random event), while others do not (since it’s a certainty that the number will get dialed at some point, so it’s more like the case where the door will close no matter what).
Michael Emouse:
Chicken is not Biblically prohibited from eating with milk, it’s just one of those Rabbinical stringencies (since meat from fowl looks similar to meat from mammals), and fish with milk is completely permitted.
These are the types of things that led me to believe, that, deep down in the cockles of their hearts, religious people know there’s no god. If they truly believed there wouldn’t be all of the rules-lawyering that goes on.
So, does that mean that Bricker’s claim that the spark is the “fire” incorrect? The “fire” is really the electricity itself?
This is a remarkable claim, and it leads me to wonder if you read the thread in any detail.
Specifically I’d direct your attention to this:
It’s true that Jesus’ teaching suggests a spirit - when He speaks of the greatest commandment, for example, He is suggesting that the Decalogue can be meaningfully observed by only two basic commands. If you’re speaking of Christian thought, then, you can certainly ask about rules-lawyering.
But the discussion here has nothing to do with Christian thought.
In my view, you’re applying Christian attitudes in order to proclaim that Orthodox Jews must be insincere. That seems to reflect a disturbing lack of analytical prowess.
Simplest, at this point, may be to get up early Thursday and take an around-the-world plane trip, clockwise. Since the sun never sets it will still be Thursday in your private time zone — eat whatever you want. (Sautéed capybara with capers sounds delicious, but do take the scales off first.)
Thanks very much for the response.
Of course I am responding on the Sabbath, by SDMB tradition.