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.
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.
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.
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.
Religious flamewar has to do with denunciatory rhetoric against other people's religious views. It doesn't matter whether you subscribe to $religion or $no-religion. It matters not to have angry, repetitive battles. We want thoughtful, curious new conversation here, and it's not possible to have both.
"Magical beliefs" not "magic" as in a party trick, but as in beyond the limits of reality, comprehension, and understanding, like the literary genre of magical realism which is fiction that diverges spontaneously into unreal elements. Most religious texts include a great deal of mythological parables that have been inherited, tuned, and reframed. "Ancient holdover" as in many religions draw-on previous religions and include practices that could've started possibly 4 millennia or more BP. In addition there are many rituals, acts, and practices which are questionable: chicken sacrifices, muta'a marriage to underage girls, suicide bombings, IEDs, bombing civilians, circumcision, FGM, abstinence lack of education/blame/shame, Vatican's wealth, communities shunning people for minor infractions, and exclusion of women from education/driving/public independence.
I think we would be letting ourselves be beholden to crybullies / bullies if we self-censor and let other people's beliefs limit what we can discuss because other people might not use personal responsibility to behave rationally and reasonably. I don't understand how someone can be responsible for another adult's behavioral choices. What's your take?
For centuries, many Irish believed some people were replaced by imposters called changelings and then they used this belief to attack, banish, or murder them. I think that's an example of a terrible belief that should be ridiculed, discussed, debunked, and eliminated. There are many types and classifications of on net harmful beliefs that inflict suffering. There are also plenty of beliefs that seek to be at peace with the human condition and with the nature of suffering, like the irreligious parts of Buddhist philosophy.
If this or any public forum isn't "appropriate" to discuss undiscussable taboos, haven't we ceased to be a liberal, open, curious, and reasonable debate society that seeks to advance enlightenment?
I'm not going to participate in any flamewars because "it takes two to tango" and I don't see the point of vitriol for the purpose of attacking, or projecting negativity, to someone you don't know. But I would ask questions if there legitimately-curious points in-between the pixels of other people's burning desire to express their anger unproductively. :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27012825
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27011929
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27012837
Two religions, same issue. If there were a third post about a third religion and a fourth about a fourth, we'd see the same problem with those.
HN commenters need to learn not to post when they're not in a curious state. When a person gets activated or provoked on a topic that they feel strongly about, that's not likely to be a curious state. One needs to pause until thoughtful conversation becomes possible again. This is not easy—it's something we all need to work on.
When the topic is divisive—and religion is maybe the most divisive topic of all—multiply the above by 100x.
p.s. Putting @dang in threads is a no-op. I only saw your comment randomly. If you want to tell us or ask us something, you should email [email protected], as the site guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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...).
If their apartment catches on fire would a very orthodox person be allowed to use an extinguisher / carry out some of their belongings?
"Pikuach nefesh ... is the principle in Jewish law that the preservation of human life overrides virtually any other religious rule."
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)
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?
Signed: Jew, where it's still 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.
Yea, probably not as in depth understanding as ultra-orthodox, but more than enough to been able to keep up in HN conversation.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
>>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"
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.
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?