Let’s put it another way. You’re not allowed to cook on the Sabbath. But you can eat food that you cooked the day before. Does that seem to violate the spirit of “no cooking”? You’re getting the benefit of the cooked food on a day you’re not supposed to cook food. Do you think that someone who cooks extra food on the day before, with the intent to eat it on the Sabbath, is being silly? Or someone who washes an extra set of clothes on the day before, intending to wear them on the Sabbath? Or someone who repairs a torn shirt the day before, and then wears the shirt on Sabbath? Or someone who builds a house, and then stays in the house on Sabbath?
When it comes to “things that shouldn’t be done,” there are discrepancies between one religion vs. another . . . especially when it comes to nonbelievers. When a fundamentalist Christian believes something is forbidden, it applies to all people, not just Christians. If you don’t toe the line, you’ll go to hell, regardless of your faith or lack thereof. But Orthodox Jews are different. They don’t expect non-Jews or less Orthodox Jews to keep kosher or wear traditional dress or keep the sabbath. The laws apply to them, and no one else.
This also holds true when exercising the loophole about asking a non-Jew to turn on your stove. It’s perfectly ok for you to ask him (you’re only speaking, and speech is not forbidden), and perfectly ok for him to do it, since he’s not Jewish.
Now I am of Jewish heritage, though not a believer. I suspect that in this context, I’d be considered Jewish, so they wouldn’t ask me to do something like this.
Not quite true. Orthodox Jews think the Law is binding on all Jews, not just Orthodox ones. The politics of Sabbath observance, marriage, conversion, etc., in Israel is Exhibit A on this. But, yes, Judaism believes most of halacha does not apply to Gentiles.
As pointed out above, the Sabbath observant Jew should not directly ask the non-Jew to do something he himself may not. It is ok, however, to benefit from something a non-Jew has done that would be a violation for the Jew. Thus the hinting around the need/want, rather than direct instruction. I find this particular dodge problematic.
If they knew or suspected you were halachically Jewish–that is, descended from Jews in the maternal line–it would be a clear violation, since they would consider you bound by the Law, and thus could not ask you to violate it, even if you didn’t care.
If you want to take the approach that you started the fire the day before because that is when you pushed the button to start the timer, then okay. Whatever works for you.
Your examples are good, but they miss the fact that the labour to produce something actually occurred in a previous time period. So, if you put a dinner in a microwave the night before with a timer on it still means that the cooking was done when the microwave actually starts, not when you set the timer. When you eat it isn’t relevant to the discussion.
It’s kind of funny to see al these non-Jews tell actual Jews what they are supposed to believe.
Who is telling anyone what they are supposed to believe?
We are discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, not the existence of angels. Obviously, the rules themselves are ridiculous, like most other holdovers from the stone/bronze age eg. all religion.
It’s not the beliefs so much as the other stuff going on.
E.g., we have a poster here in major denial about a common occurrence. That is: there are several reports of quite observant, even Orthodox, Jews hiring non-Jews to do tasks for them on the Sabbath. This denial is munging up with some of the discussion. Also my statement that about different refrigerators and plates are for appearance. Sure, you get the line about contamination first. But when you poke a hole in that, it always comes down to appearance. (And not just in this example.)
There is also the issue of the “why” about the reasoning for something. Obvious defects in the “why” are being denied with anti-rational statements.
Like I said earlier, if the reason was given as “just because, that’s why”. That’s fine. But to claim a consistent set of reasons when clearly there isn’t one. Then I think pointing out the flaws in that reasoning is okay.
This is not the same thing as Christians reinterpreting large chunks of the OT for their own benefit. I’m against that. The people that wrote it have the final say. (As long as they are being honest. Unfortunately, some passages previously used as Messiah prophecies are now claimed to refer to something else. That’s not reasonable. No more than Christians interpreting non-Messianic passages as Messianic.)
Lately it seems to me that there’s a huge disconnect about Judaism, and the origin really is that Americans have been told there is something called a “Judeo-Christian” viewpoint, implying that the viewpoints of Judaism and Christianity are somewhat similar. But they aren’t similar at all. Philosophically, Judaism has far more in common with the Anglo-American legal system than it has in common with Christianity.
Christians: stop thinking that Judaism is a set of “beliefs” and start thinking that its a legal system, then maybe you’ll be on the path to recognizing that Judaism is NOT a prototypical form of Christianity; it is completely different. Christ objected to the legal formalism of Judaism, so, as Christians, you would naturally reject it as well in favor of concepts like “faith” and “good intentions” (neither of which are key concepts in Judaism; neither is “sin” or metaphysical punishment for sins). But the legalistic formalism of Judaism is an inherent and fundamental aspect of it, not something that needs to be corrected from the Jewish POV – nor is it semantic in nature to the adherents of Judaism.
When the law states that it’s a crime to “possess” certain drugs, is it merely semantic to argue whether not you were in “possession” if the drugs are sitting on your coffee table in front of you? What about if they are inside a car you are the sole owner of? What about if you’re at your friends house, and the drugs are in front of you, on his coffee table? Which of these acts break the law vs. which don’t, is a fundamental question if your goal is, above all, to obey the law.
incomplete thought; nm
This appears to be argument by fiat. I don’t see where you poked any holes in my explanation of a gezeirah. You claimed that the reason was for appearances; I gave you an alternate explanation, and your response is to continue to assert that " it always comes down to appearance," without an acknowledgement of the alternate rationale I offered – except to claim that somehow a hole was poked in it. In what post was this done, and what was the hole?
Tante Dillie:
OK. It’s been a few days since the above was posted, and I wanted to be sure I got correct what I write. Even so, disclaimer, I am not a Rabbi, I may have some things wrong below.
Before I commence, I want to correct something that Hari Seldon said. He seemed to imply that the main exception for when we are allowed to tell a non-Jew to violate the Sabbath for us is when a life is at stake. This is incorrect. When a life is at stake, even questionably, a Jew himself may, nay, SHOULD violate the Sabbath. There is no virtue in trying to avoid Sabbath violation when one could be possibly saving a life. This doesn’t apply only to medical emergencies either. During World War II, great Rabbis would drive on Sabbath to collect funds when there was the possibility of saving some lives through payoffs.
So - getting a non-Jew to do forbidden work on the Sabbath. Let’s start by reviewing the 4th commandment, specifically the part in Exodus 20:10:
The Torah prohibition on Sabbath “work” (specifically the types referred to as melacha, as discussed earlier in this thread) applies to adult Jews and anyone over whom they have some degree of authority or control. The “foreigner residing in your towns” are non-Jews who live under the authority of a Jewish king. The Biblical text, strictly speaking, does not forbid a Jew to ask a completely independent non-Jew to do something for him.
The prohibition on having a non-Jew do work for you was instituted by the Rabbis (of what era I couldn’t say for certain, but certainly before the Talmud was written). According to Maimonides, the main reason for this was so that Jews would not treat the Sabbath prohibitions lightly, and eventually come to violate them himself. (Other reasons are also offered by other Rabbis.) When the Rabbis prohibited it, they made certain exceptions:
[ul]
[li]If someone is seriously ill (e.g., in severe pain, but NOT in danger of losing life or limb), one may ask a non-Jew to perform an act forbidden by the Torah. The reasoning behind this exception is that people cannot be expected to stay rational in that sort of situation, so if they forbid acting through a non-Jew, a Jew might react by violating the Sabbath himself.[/li][li]If there is another commandment which is a COMMUNAL obligation, one may ask a non-Jew to perform an act forbidden by the Torah in order to enable the community to do that (e.g., turning on the lights in a synagogue if it would be impossible for communal prayer without that). In a similar vein, saving sacred writings (e.g. Torah scrolls) from impending destruction falls into this category.[/li][/ul]
Those are (broadly speaking) the exceptional cases in which the Rabbis allowed a Jew to directly ask a non-Jew to do something the Torah itself forbids. There are other Sabbath prohibitions that are themselves only prohibited by the Rabbis, as protection against violating the Torah’s commandments. One example of such is doing an act that is completely destructive. By Torah law, a type of work is only forbidden for constructive purpose - e.g., cutting material is only prohibited if you’re cutting it to a specific size and/or shape, so the end product is more perfect for use than it was before. To shred something just to destroy it is not forbidden by the Torah, but the Rabbis forbade that because allowing it might lead one to mistakenly also do constructive cutting. For a Jew to tell a non-Jew to violate a Rabbinic Sabbath prohibition is also prohibited, but the exceptions are broader, including:
[ul]
[li]If someone is suffering from a minor illness (e.g., a basic headache), one may ask a non-Jew to violate a Rabbinic prohibition to improve his comfort[/li][li]A Jew may ask a non-Jew to violate a Rabbinic Sabbath prohibition in order to be allowed to perform a different Torah commandment (private, not communal)[/li][li]A Jew may ask a non-Jew to violate a Rabbinic Sabbath prohibition in order to prevent a financial loss (e.g., to turn off a light so as not to waste electricity)[/li][li]A Jew may ask a non-Jew to violate a Rabbinic prohibition in order to accommodate unexpected guests on the Sabbath.[/li][/ul]
In these circumstances, the Jew should not directly tell the non-Jew what to do, but should hint at what needs to be done by describing the unwanted situation, leaving it to the non-Jew to figure out for himself how to rectify the situation being described. Limiting the ability to violate Rabbinic prohibitions to this manner and these circumstances ensures (to the Rabbis’ satisfaction) that there is enough distance between what people will do and actual Torah violations.
I will try to peruse the rest of the thread later.