Having rules just for the purpose of obeying them as an act of fidelity sounds to me like something out of a complicated D/s relationship.
Not that I have anything against D/s relationships, but I really don’t want to have one with God.
(It seems like for most of us main exposure to questions about Jewish laws comes from Feyman.)
Another anecdote Feyman tells is that there was an elevator operated by a non-Jew on Sabbath for the Orthodox students. Note that the operator asked and was told what floors the students wanted to go to. So this is an instance of asking a non-Jew to do something for them on Sabbath.
Also, despite the “legalistic” arguments about applying the Law, there are some obvious contractions in behavior.
E.g., the rule against not eating the meat of the calf with the milk of the cow has gotten really extended. Different refrigerators and different sets of dishes in some households for meat and dairy. That is going way beyond the rule. The argument I hear is that you don’t want to appear to others to be violating the rule.
OTOH, the Eruv thing goes the other way. Making a mockery of the rule.
Hence you get the weird arguments about quinoa. It’s the seed of a beet-like plant. So okay for Passover. Wait, but it looks and is used like a grain. So not okay. Umm, there’s nothing about “looking like” in the OT as far as I can tell.
If people just said “Hey, we don’t have any real logic behind this.” Okay. But to assert that there is some grand logic behind all these divergent over/under use of rules is something I don’t understand.
AFAICT walking across the room and staring at the light switch wouldn’t be ‘work’ but flipping the switch would. But which is actually more work?
Hell, apparently driving a car on the Sabbath is ‘work’ but walking several miles instead of driving that distance isn’t.
Pardon me, but isn’t that just plain dumb?? :smack:
[QUOTE=Exodus 20:10 (NIV)]
On [the Sabbath] you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.
[/QUOTE]
When you get to that point, it seems like you’ve gotten it all backwards. ISTM that you’re honoring a set of rules built up around the Commandment, while running roughshod over the Commandment itself.
But you’re not the arbiter of this.
You’re not supposed to do creative work on Shabbat. You can do as much creative work as you want before Shabbat. So push all the buttons you want and light any fires you want and set any timers you want - before Shabbat. On Shabbat, if the timer you set turns on the light, that’s not you doing the work. Apparently for some people that’s a tough concept.
Because you don’t understand what “work” means in that context. “Work” is not an exact translation of the Hebrew word “melacha”. See http://www.ou.org/chagim/shabbat/concept.htm
And given that on the Sabbath, you’re expected not only to refrain from work yourself, but to not have your servants, beasts of burden, or even the alien within your gates do work on your behalf, it would seem wrong to even do the “gee, it sure is dark in here” dodge to nudge one of us goyim to flip the light switch.
It is, and it is prohibited. If those Orthodox students went to their rabbi and asked him whether they were allowed to do that, they would have been told no.
A “Shabbat Elevator” though, which just goes up/down on Shabbat and stops and opens/closes doors on every floor, is ok to use.
That’s not quite the only rationale.
Keeping a different set of dishes for meat and dairy is an example of what Orthodox Jews call a gezeirah – a rabbi-crafted law which seeks to prevent people from inadvertently violating a Torah mitzvah, the law from Scripture.
So the mitzvah is to not mix the flesh of the kid with the milk of the mother. The gezeirah is in place to prevent a slatternly cook who failed to completely clean the cookware from being responsible for violation of that mitzvah. Separate dishes ensure that there’s a “fence” around that mitzvah, a space that ensures the actual mitzvah remains inviolate.
Feel free to quote appropriate passages.
But as I’ve said on this board dozens of times before, I’m not going to go through the following sequence:
- I follow the link and read what I’ve been asked to read.
- From the reading, I try to suss out the argument that the poster thinks is in the reading.
- I refute that argument.
- I’m told by the poster that I have the argument in step 2 wrong.
- Lather, rinse, repeat.
So tell me what ‘work’ means in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. What do you think God meant by ‘work’ when laying down the Law, and why? Quote from your source to whatever extent you need to, to buttress your claim.
I’ll tell you what I think. I don’t think God is stupid, and I don’t think God is nitpicky.
If you insist on using the word “work”, and treating it as if that is what the Torah says, without trying to find out what the original Hebrew word means, then any argument is pointless. I guess if English was good enough for God, it’s good enough for you.
cmkeller can correct me, but I’ve never heard anyone say that the purpose of the laws is to inconvenience us - or to set us apart from other people. The laws were written when people worked seven days a week, and when lighting a fire was relatively hard work. The Sabbath is created by God in Genesis as a day of rest - and if he needed to rest, surely we do. Rest and spend the time studying and reflecting on God, since reading and praying is not prohibited.
That’s why, as I understand it, measuring work in the physics sense and comparing the amount of work to do different things just shows you don’t get the purpose of the rule.
A good modern equivalent is the computer Sabbath. Some people don’t log in, don’t check Facebook or Twitter one day a week, and use the time to just think and to actually talk to their families. The amount of work involved has nothing to do with it.
Maybe you don’t understand English:
I did tell you what it is. I pointed you to a pretty good explanation. You refuse to read it. Your loss.
The essentially Christian notion of “sin” can be a bit misleading when it comes to interpreting Jewish rituals. A better analogy would be to “ritual purity”.
The reason is this: in Christianity, it is often thought that the intention to commit an infraction - a “sin” - is basically bad in and of itself: “we have all sinned in our hearts” and suchlike.
In matters of ritual purity, it is the act and the act alone which is the “infraction”. There is no harm whatsoever - no infraction - in wishing to commit the act, or even in finding a way to commit the act that does not involve impurity.
Perhaps another anaolgy is helpful here: say you have dogshit on your lawn. You want to get rid of it, but picking up dogshit with your bare hands is gross. It is not gross in and of itself to want to get rid of dogshit. It is not gross, if your neighbour is carrying a shovel he doesn’t mind getting dirty, to ask him if he would get rid of the dogshit for you. Thinking of clever ways to be rid of the dogshit without getting any on your hands isn’t “breaking the spirit”, it’s just sensible.
It is not like (say) adultery in Christianity, where even wanting it is “bad” and finding ways to commit it that does not break some rigid notion of the rules of adultery is even worse.
The premise - that breaking the rules is akin to dogshit on your hands - is of course totally arbitrary, because we are talking about ritual purity here, not actual purity or cleanliness. It is a logical construct based on a wholly arbitrary (that is, assuming you don’t believe that God himself created them) premises.
Besides, the basic idea seems pretty damned simple. God did a shitload of work in the six days of Creation, and then rested from his labors. The Commandment says we should do the same.
This is not a hard concept that relies on precise translations of nuances of words from the Biblia Hebraica.
No, the burden’s on you to explain why the obvious interpretation isn’t so. Today isn’t the Sabbath. Do your own work.
I’ll take a run at this – although of course I am not Jewish. But I believe the argument I will make below fairly represents the Orthodox Jewish view.
Not all “work” is prohibited on the Sabbath. The types of work that are prohibited are those that involve creation of something, directly or indirectly, or an assertion of control over the environment around us. This is deduced from Exodus 31:12-17 and Exodus 35:1-3, and the interspersal immediately before and after those verses with descriptions of the specific work that was being done to create the Mishkan. So the kind of work that is forbidden on the Sabbath, reasoned the commentators, was the kind of work being discussed in that kind of creation:
[ul]
[li]Sowing seeds[/li][li]Plowing[/li][li]Cutting / reaping[/li][li]Gathering[/li][li]Threshing[/li][li]Winnowing[/li][li]Sorting[/li][li]Grinding[/li][li]Sifting[/li][li]Kneading[/li][li]Cooking[/li][li]Shearing[/li][li]Bleaching[/li][li]Disentangling / combing[/li][li]Dyeing[/li][li]Spinning[/li][li]Stretching threads (as on to a loom)[/li][li]Setting loom heddles (prep for weaving)[/li][li]Weaving[/li][li]Separating threads / unweaving[/li][li]Tying a knot[/li][li]Untying a knot[/li][li]Sewing[/li][li]Tearing / unsewing stitches / ripping[/li][li]Trapping[/li][li]Killing for butchering[/li][li]Skinning[/li][li]Salting / tanning hides[/li][li]Tracing lines[/li][li]Smoothing / scraping[/li][li]Cutting to shape / cutting to a pattern[/li][li]Writing two or more letters[/li][li]Erasing two or more letters[/li][li]Building[/li][li]Tearing down something built[/li][li]Making a fire[/li][li]Extinguishing a fire [/li][li]Striking the final hit needed to finish an object[/li][li]Carrying an object from one domain to another [/li][/ul]
In other words, the “work” in question is the kind of work that prompted the Lord’s comments as related in Exodus.
How can you tell it’s an “obvious interpretation” if you don’t speak the language in which the rule was written?
Because there are these things called ‘translations’ of the Scriptures. They are, in this day and age, done as scholarly works where accurately expressing not just the verbatim words, but the concepts being expressed by those words, sentences, and passages, is considered to be of paramount importance.
If a passage in the Torah is consistently translated into English in a certain way, what it tells me is that Hebrew scholars have widely agreed that that is what it means, as best as can be expressed in English. Against this background, you have a link.
“Work” is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew word “melacha”. An accurate translation would take a paragraph. That’s not how translations work. And since those who read that passage in English don’t really need the accurate translation, since they don’t follow it, that word is good enough.