Question for the Conservatives
Lisa Beth
We've heard over and over again about the Conservative ruling that
it's just fine and dandy to violate all sorts of Torah laws by driving
to synagogue on Shabbat. The obvious implication of this utterly
anti-halakhic ruling is that it's more important to go to shul than it
is to refrain from violating Shabbat.
So... this week's homework is for you to ask your LCR if you can drive
to visit your parents on Shabbat. After all, there's a commandment to
honor one's parents. Or if it's okay to drive to a souphouse to feed
the needy on Shabbat. Tzedaka is a mitzvah, too.
When you find out that the answer is "no", your next assignment is to
ask yourself what it is, precisely, about going to shul that was so
important to the Conservative movement that they put it above... well,
basically above the entirety of the Torah.
The answer is pretty obvious, once you think about it. No synagogue
attendence means pretty soon, no synagogue membership. An inability
to claim to be a huge movement. A loss in revenues.
There's no ideology or theology involved in this ruling. It was a
cynical decision to mislead tens of thousands of people into thinking
that acts which are clearly violations of Shabbat are okay. It's the
ends justifying the means. Except they never really do, do they.
Lisa
Colin Rosenthal
>Or actually, something for Conservatives to ask their LCRs.
>
>We've heard over and over again about the Conservative ruling that
>it's just fine and dandy to violate all sorts of Torah laws by driving
>to synagogue on Shabbat. The obvious implication of this utterly
>anti-halakhic ruling is that it's more important to go to shul than it
>is to refrain from violating Shabbat.
>
>So... this week's homework is for you to ask your LCR if you can drive
>to visit your parents on Shabbat. After all, there's a commandment to
>honor one's parents. Or if it's okay to drive to a souphouse to feed
>the needy on Shabbat. Tzedaka is a mitzvah, too.
>
>When you find out that the answer is "no", your next assignment is to
>ask yourself what it is, precisely, about going to shul that was so
>important to the Conservative movement that they put it above... well,
>basically above the entirety of the Torah.
>
>The answer is pretty obvious, once you think about it. No synagogue
>attendence means pretty soon, no synagogue membership. An inability
>to claim to be a huge movement. A loss in revenues.
Not necessarily. It could also be that for many, perhaps even most, Jews
occasional synagogue attendance is their main link to Judaism and
their main expression of Judaism. If shul attendance were denied to
them they would drift away entirely. Of course that doesn't
entirely explain the C ruling because plenty of people drive to O
shuls on shabbat as well, but at O shuls you have to park around the
corner and at C shuls you can use the parking lot.
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>Not necessarily. It could also be that for many, perhaps even most, Jews
>occasional synagogue attendance is their main link to Judaism and
>their main expression of Judaism. If shul attendance were denied to
>them they would drift away entirely. Of course that doesn't
>entirely explain the C ruling because plenty of people drive to O
>shuls on shabbat as well, but at O shuls you have to park around the
>corner and at C shuls you can use the parking lot.
>
There may be plenty of people who drive to O shuls on the shabbat as well. I
have never seen any, and I don't know of any, but what is your point? You
are not saying that there are O people who drive th shul on the shabbat, are
you? That is simply not true. Any individual who drives to shul on shabbat
is by definition not an O. Correct me if I am wrong.
wba...@panix.com
and walk around the corner. This is particularly prevalent around the
Yomim Noraim when 3 day a year people go to their local O shul for
whatever reasons. Also, often there are people who are not observant who
come to Bar or Bat mitzvahs (vot) and drive. This way we don't have to
talk aout whether they are O or not and driving to shul. Orthodox Halacha
says no driving, but not everyone follows the Halacha. I am sure that
there are plenty of politically conservative Reform Jews who don't follow
the social action precepts of the movement. This kind of disconnect
occurs in many places.
Shabbat Shalom
Wendy Baker
Sheldon Ackerman
>How about,- There are members and attenders of O shuls who drive to shul
>and walk around the corner. This is particularly prevalent around the
>Yomim Noraim when 3 day a year people go to their local O shul for
>whatever reasons. Also, often there are people who are not observant who
>come to Bar or Bat mitzvahs (vot) and drive. This way we don't have to
>talk aout whether they are O or not and driving to shul. Orthodox Halacha
>says no driving, but not everyone follows the Halacha. I am sure that
>there are plenty of politically conservative Reform Jews who don't follow
>the social action precepts of the movement. This kind of disconnect
>occurs in many places.
>
>Shabbat Shalom
>Wendy Baker
I doubt that is the point Colin was attempting to make. Although I do not
get the point you are trying to make either. I am sure there are non sabbath
observant people in some orthodox shuls some of the time. So what? What was
the point of bringing it up in the message thread? The point of the message
Colin responded to seemed to me to be saying that Conservative Jews drive to
shul on the sabbath.
I realize that I probably have lived a sheltered life in some aspects. I did
grow up in Bronsville when it was a Jewish neighborhood and now live in
Flatbush, another Jewish neighborhood. I do realize that some Jews are
"mechallelei shabbat." I know quite a number of them, but not one of them
would call himself orthodox.
As an aside, because of the point you bring up, many "auf ruf's" (the
calling up to the Torah of the groom the sabbath before the wedding) are now
made during the week so that people will not drive on the Sabbath. This is
done in families where they are aware that some of their guests may end up
driving.
Eliyahu
"Sheldon Ackerman" <acke...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote in message
news:slrn95c3o7....@amanda.dorsai.org...
Perhaps he should have phrased it as saying "plenty of people who attend O
shuls" or "some members of O shuls...." Driving to shul, though, doesn't
mean that the person isn't O, just that they aren't following the standards
they profess to believe in. That, I'm afraid, is a fairly universal human
shortcoming -- falling short of what we'd like to be.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Murray
I recognize the precedence of observing mitzvot in accordance
with halacha as opposed to just doing whatever one feels is
expedient; but, it is not always easy for Jews to locate their
residences near their shuls. We are not living in the Jewish
enclaves of large U.S. cities of the 1940s through 1960s when
there was a shul on almost every city block. Urban sprawl
and the location of residences to minimize commuting means
that riding to shul is often the only way one can get to services
where there is a minyan. Of course, spending erev Shabbat
at a friend's house near the shul and walking to services is an
alternative but it is not always feasible. And, what of those
people who have awakened to Judaism years after establishing
their places of residence, are they to be disenfranchised
because they need to drive to atttend services? I think not.
For me Judaism is not an "all or nothing" proposition.
Judaism is a process, a journey where every step counts; I
believe one step at a time is better than no steps at all. Therefore
I welcome Jews driving on the Shabbat to get to services, it's
an important step. Higher levels of observance will come later.
Personally I think we need to avoid negative discussions regarding
O, C and R Jews, their practices and beliefs; it is, at best, divisive.
This newsgroup deserves better.
Lisa Beth wrote:
> Or actually, something for Conservatives to ask their LCRs.
>
> We've heard over and over again about the Conservative ruling that
> it's just fine and dandy to violate all sorts of Torah laws by driving
> to synagogue on Shabbat. The obvious implication of this utterly
> anti-halakhic ruling is that it's more important to go to shul than it
> is to refrain from violating Shabbat....
>
> Lisa
--
Murray
Your thoughts determine what you want; your actions determine what you get.
A parent owes his children three things: example, example and example.
agor...@my-deja.com
The answer is, from what I've seen, it's ok to drive on the Shabbat to
perform any mitzvah.
The question I ask you is: why is driving on shabbat forbidden in your
tradition but walking is not? It's more restful to walk? Where is it
said that my Nissan Altima is a forbidden machine to operate on the
Shabbat?
alex
In article <3a54e8cf...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: We've heard over and over again about the Conservative ruling that
: it's just fine and dandy to violate all sorts of Torah laws by driving
: to synagogue on Shabbat. The obvious implication of this utterly
: anti-halakhic ruling is that it's more important to go to shul than it
: is to refrain from violating Shabbat.
"objective reality."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Harry Weiss
> The answer is, from what I've seen, it's ok to drive on the Shabbat to
> perform any mitzvah.
> The question I ask you is: why is driving on shabbat forbidden in your
> tradition but walking is not? It's more restful to walk? Where is it
> said that my Nissan Altima is a forbidden machine to operate on the
> Shabbat?
If you follow Judaism it is prohibited to drive on Shabbat. Driving cause
fire in the engine among numerous other violations. What is prohbited is
not what WE decide is restful, it is what G-d in the Torah said is
prohbited. It does nto need to say specifically you Nissan Alitima jsut
like it does not have say specifically one my not murder alex, it
sufficient that says one may not murder.
> alex
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>
> The answer is, from what I've seen, it's ok to drive on the Shabbat to
> perform any mitzvah.
>
> The question I ask you is: why is driving on shabbat forbidden in your
> tradition but walking is not? It's more restful to walk? Where is it
> said that my Nissan Altima is a forbidden machine to operate on the
> Shabbat?
Sarcasm ON:
You're right, the Bible only forbids Fords and Chryslers. The very
strict include Chevrolets.
Sarcasm OFF:
Alex your question as phrased is a good example of why we need an Oral
Law. The Torah writes the general outline, the Oral Law fleshes it
out and the rules of exegesis enable us to determine what the law
should be in new circumstances. Or would you try and argue that the
Torah does not forbid murdering someone with a gun?
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Yitzchak Moran
>
> Or actually, something for Conservatives to ask their LCRs.
>
> We've heard over and over again about the Conservative ruling that
> it's just fine and dandy to violate all sorts of Torah laws by driving
> to synagogue on Shabbat. The obvious implication of this utterly
> anti-halakhic ruling is that it's more important to go to shul than it
> is to refrain from violating Shabbat.
>
> So... this week's homework is for you to ask your LCR if you can drive
> to visit your parents on Shabbat. After all, there's a commandment to
> honor one's parents. Or if it's okay to drive to a souphouse to feed
> the needy on Shabbat. Tzedaka is a mitzvah, too.
Actually, this brings something to mind that I've been wondering about
for a while; is there a, I don't know, weighted list of the mitzvot?
I know this sounds a little silly, but bear with me: my understanding
is, while we are obligated to perform *all* the mitzvot, some can take
precedence over others in certain situations. The example we've seen
here most recently is that of saving a life on Shabbos.
It also came up during a Shabbat dinner discussion a few weeks ago. We
were discussing a particular mitzvah (and bad on me for not remembering
the exact one; I'm sorry), and someone quoted a rabbi (I think it was
Rashi) that that particular mitzvah was equivalent to all the other
mitzvot put together. Which reminded me that I had heard that statement
made about a *number* of mitzvot (e.g., "That which is hateful to you,
do not do to your neighbor; the rest is commentary; go and study.")
Which made me wonder, has anyone ever weighted them?
--
Yitzchak Moran | "...for what reason was the School of Hillel entitled
Professional Dad | to have the law determined according to their rulings?
from the Home Office | Because they were kindly and humble, and because they
dou...@earthlink.net | studied their own rulings and those of Shammai..."
Lisa Beth
Rosenthal) wrote:
>On 5 Jan 2001 14:00:14 GMT,
>Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Or actually, something for Conservatives to ask their LCRs.
>>
>>We've heard over and over again about the Conservative ruling that
>>it's just fine and dandy to violate all sorts of Torah laws by driving
>>to synagogue on Shabbat. The obvious implication of this utterly
>>anti-halakhic ruling is that it's more important to go to shul than it
>>is to refrain from violating Shabbat.
>>
>>So... this week's homework is for you to ask your LCR if you can drive
>>to visit your parents on Shabbat. After all, there's a commandment to
>>honor one's parents. Or if it's okay to drive to a souphouse to feed
>>the needy on Shabbat. Tzedaka is a mitzvah, too.
>>
>>When you find out that the answer is "no", your next assignment is to
>>ask yourself what it is, precisely, about going to shul that was so
>>important to the Conservative movement that they put it above... well,
>>basically above the entirety of the Torah.
>>
>>The answer is pretty obvious, once you think about it. No synagogue
>>attendence means pretty soon, no synagogue membership. An inability
>>to claim to be a huge movement. A loss in revenues.
>
>Not necessarily. It could also be that for many, perhaps even most, Jews
>occasional synagogue attendance is their main link to Judaism and
>their main expression of Judaism.
So? If, as the Conservative apologizes claim, the Conservative
movement cares about halakha, they'd realize that shul attendence is
*not* any kind of main expression of Judaism. Furthermore, their
"permission" allows Jews to drive on Shabbat even if there's an
Orthodox synagogue right next door to them. It's only if a
*Conservative* one isn't within walking distance that they say, "Go
ahead, violae Shabbat". If they were just interested in the ability
to go to shul, this wouldn't be the case.
Lisa
maurie fox-warren
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote in message
<938vh8$ign$2...@news.huji.ac.il>...
>In article <3a54e8cf...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Lisa Beth
<star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>: We've heard over and over again about the Conservative ruling that
>: it's just fine and dandy to violate all sorts of Torah laws by driving
>: to synagogue on Shabbat. The obvious implication of this utterly
>: anti-halakhic ruling is that it's more important to go to shul than it
>: is to refrain from violating Shabbat.
>
>There is no such Conservative ruling. So much for Ms. !Aaronson and
>"objective reality."
>
The Israeli Masorti movement has ruled that one may not drive to shul on
Shabat but the American Conservative movement has taken a different
position.
Maurie
maurie fox-warren
Yitzchak Moran wrote in message <93a4kp$mdp$1...@condor.nj.org>...
snipped:
>
>Actually, this brings something to mind that I've been wondering about
>for a while; is there a, I don't know, weighted list of the mitzvot?
>I know this sounds a little silly, but bear with me: my understanding
>is, while we are obligated to perform *all* the mitzvot, some can take
>precedence over others in certain situations. The example we've seen
>here most recently is that of saving a life on Shabbos.
>
>It also came up during a Shabbat dinner discussion a few weeks ago. We
>were discussing a particular mitzvah (and bad on me for not remembering
>the exact one; I'm sorry),
perhaps the study of Torah. This comes from a bit of talmud included in the
liturgy just after the morning torah blessings.
Maurie
wba...@panix.com
: agor...@my-deja.com wrote:
:> The answer is, from what I've seen, it's ok to drive on the Shabbat to
:> perform any mitzvah.
:> The question I ask you is: why is driving on shabbat forbidden in your
:> tradition but walking is not? It's more restful to walk? Where is it
:> said that my Nissan Altima is a forbidden machine to operate on the
:> Shabbat?
: If you follow Judaism it is prohibited to drive on Shabbat. Driving cause
: fire in the engine among numerous other violations. What is prohbited is
: not what WE decide is restful, it is what G-d in the Torah said is
: prohbited. It does nto need to say specifically you Nissan Alitima jsut
: like it does not have say specifically one my not murder alex, it
: sufficient that says one may not murder.
:> alex
Just for the pont of argument-What is the reason for not using a bicycle
or scooter or rooer skates to get to shul>? No fire there, but also not
permitted as far as I know. It could be less "work" than walking
Wendy Baker
meirm...@erols.com
Moran <dou...@earthlink.net> posted:
>Lisa Beth wrote:
>>
>> Or actually, something for Conservatives to ask their LCRs.
>>
>> We've heard over and over again about the Conservative ruling that
>> it's just fine and dandy to violate all sorts of Torah laws by driving
>> to synagogue on Shabbat. The obvious implication of this utterly
>> anti-halakhic ruling is that it's more important to go to shul than it
>> is to refrain from violating Shabbat.
>>
>> So... this week's homework is for you to ask your LCR if you can drive
>> to visit your parents on Shabbat. After all, there's a commandment to
>> honor one's parents. Or if it's okay to drive to a souphouse to feed
>> the needy on Shabbat. Tzedaka is a mitzvah, too.
>
>Actually, this brings something to mind that I've been wondering about
>for a while; is there a, I don't know, weighted list of the mitzvot?
>I know this sounds a little silly, but bear with me: my understanding
>is, while we are obligated to perform *all* the mitzvot, some can take
>precedence over others in certain situations. The example we've seen
>here most recently is that of saving a life on Shabbos.
>
>It also came up during a Shabbat dinner discussion a few weeks ago. We
>were discussing a particular mitzvah (and bad on me for not remembering
>the exact one; I'm sorry), and someone quoted a rabbi (I think it was
>Rashi) that that particular mitzvah was equivalent to all the other
>mitzvot put together. Which reminded me that I had heard that statement
>made about a *number* of mitzvot (e.g., "That which is hateful to you,
>do not do to your neighbor; the rest is commentary; go and study.")
IIUC that's not a mitzvah, it's a summary of the commandments between
man and man.
I recall a talk about various attempts to summarize in
(progressively?) fewer number of lines.
I remember the one with three, From Micha,
6:8. He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord
require of you, but to do justice, and to love loving mercy, and to
walk humbly with your God?
(comments on the Davka use of 'loving mercy' here? Misprint?
Combination with loving kindness?)
>Which made me wonder, has anyone ever weighted them?
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me only, please say, so I won't
e-mail by removing QQQ wait forever for a post and then forget to
answer the email at all. If you post &
mail, please say, so I will wait for the post.
Lisa Beth
>The answer is, from what I've seen, it's ok to drive on the Shabbat to
>perform any mitzvah.
Sorry, that's wrong. Let's go on to our next contestent.
>The question I ask you is: why is driving on shabbat forbidden in your
>tradition but walking is not? It's more restful to walk? Where is it
>said that my Nissan Altima is a forbidden machine to operate on the
>Shabbat?
Where did you get the idea that it's "rest", as defined by Alex
Gorelik, that's forbidden on Shabbat? We're commanded to refrain from
melacha, Alex. Which is not the same as what you call "work".
Lisa
Binyamin Dissen
:>Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote:
:>: agor...@my-deja.com wrote:
:>:> The answer is, from what I've seen, it's ok to drive on the Shabbat to
:>:> perform any mitzvah.
:>:> The question I ask you is: why is driving on shabbat forbidden in your
:>:> tradition but walking is not? It's more restful to walk? Where is it
:>:> said that my Nissan Altima is a forbidden machine to operate on the
:>:> Shabbat?
:>: If you follow Judaism it is prohibited to drive on Shabbat. Driving cause
:>: fire in the engine among numerous other violations. What is prohbited is
:>: not what WE decide is restful, it is what G-d in the Torah said is
:>: prohbited. It does nto need to say specifically you Nissan Alitima jsut
:>: like it does not have say specifically one my not murder alex, it
:>: sufficient that says one may not murder.
:>Just for the pont of argument-What is the reason for not using a bicycle
:>or scooter or rooer skates to get to shul>? No fire there, but also not
:>permitted as far as I know. It could be less "work" than walking
Rabbinically forbidden because one may have trouble with the bicycle and try
to repair it.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Warning, I AM NOT A POSEK. This is not a PSAK.
Harry Weiss
> :> alex
If you are in a area with an eruv, there may not be a problem. With
Roller skates there may not even be a toraitic problem of Shabbat. The
one problem I could think of would be similar to a musical instrument,
that one may fix it without thinking.
> Wendy Baker
Joe Slater
>:>Just for the pont of argument-What is the reason for not using a bicycle
>:>or scooter or rooer skates to get to shul>? No fire there, but also not
>:>permitted as far as I know. It could be less "work" than walking
Note that "work" is practically irrelevent when considering the laws
of Shabbat; it is certain categories of activity which are forbidden,
and these may have nothing to do with the English word "work".
Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>Rabbinically forbidden because one may have trouble with the bicycle and try
>to repair it.
When you say "rabbinically forbidden" you can't mean it in the same
sense that carrying in a carmelit is "rabbinically forbidden". What
you must mean is that certain modern rabbis told their followers not
to do it. There's certainly not any gezera against it, because rabbis
today have no power to issue gezerot. I wouldn't do it myself, but is
there any *genuine* reason not to do so?
jds
--
And now kind friends, what I have wrote,
I hope you will pass o'er,
And not criticize, as some have done,
Hitherto herebefore. (Julia Moore, "The Author's Early Life")
Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879
> When you say "rabbinically forbidden" you can't mean it in the same
> sense that carrying in a carmelit is "rabbinically forbidden". What
> you must mean is that certain modern rabbis told their followers not
> to do it. There's certainly not any gezera against it, because rabbis
> today have no power to issue gezerot. I wouldn't do it myself, but is
> there any *genuine* reason not to do so?
This is a fun question. When bicycling, the obvious problems that one
might be tempted to fix are: A blown tire. Repair requires that you
have a patch kit and a pump. A flat tire, requires that you have a pump.
Maladjusted brakes, repaired by twisting the ferrule at the end of the
brake cable to change the cable length a few millimeters. Chain off the
sprocket, requires fingers and a willingness to get grease on yorself.
The prohibition against carrying pumps and patch kits on shabbat is
obvious (outside an eruv) and I can see how their use is prohibited by
natural extension of the categories of forbidden work.
I cannot see, for certain, how putting a chain back on its sprocket is
forbidden, nor can I see, for certain, how twisting a cable ferrule is
forbidden. Opening a door by turning the doorknob seems as dangerous,
or picking up a book that fell off a table.
Doug Jones
jo...@cs.uiowa.edu
Harry Weiss
animzmirot
"Sheldon Ackerman" <acke...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote in
message news:slrn95c3o7....@amanda.dorsai.org...
wrote:
> >
> >Not necessarily. It could also be that for many, perhaps
even most, Jews
> >occasional synagogue attendance is their main link to
Judaism and
> >their main expression of Judaism. If shul attendance were
denied to
> >them they would drift away entirely. Of course that
doesn't
> >entirely explain the C ruling because plenty of people
drive to O
> >shuls on shabbat as well, but at O shuls you have to park
around the
> >corner and at C shuls you can use the parking lot.
Perhaps you might want to drive a ways to Newton Centre on a
Shabbat morning and see for yourself if people drive to O
shuls. The answer is extremely clear if you're on Comm Ave.
Marjorie
Marc Andrews
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
What about a wheelchair? An electric one would presumably be forbidden, but what
about a manual one? Isn't this similar to a bicycle in basic principle, and it
could certainly also suffer mechanical breakdown. The user, obviously being unable
to walk, would have no other way to get to shul.
wba...@panix.com
: Wendy Baker <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
:> Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote:
:> : agor...@my-deja.com wrote:
:> :> The answer is, from what I've seen, it's ok to drive on the Shabbat to
:> :> perform any mitzvah.
:> : If you follow Judaism it is prohibited to drive on Shabbat. Driving cause
:> : fire in the engine among numerous other violations. What is prohbited is
:> : not what WE decide is restful, it is what G-d in the Torah said is
:> : prohbited. It does nto need to say specifically you Nissan Alitima jsut
:> : like it does not have say specifically one my not murder alex, it
:> : sufficient that says one may not murder.
:> :> alex
:> Just for the pont of argument-What is the reason for not using a bicycle
:> or scooter or rooer skates to get to shul>? No fire there, but also not
:> permitted as far as I know. It could be less "work" than walking
: If you are in a area with an eruv, there may not be a problem. With
: Roller skates there may not even be a toraitic problem of Shabbat. The
: one problem I could think of would be similar to a musical instrument,
: that one may fix it without thinking.
:> Wendy Baker
: --
: Harry J. Weiss
: hjw...@panix.com
So this is one of those "fence" issues (puting a fence around the Torah or
the action) Appropos of the discussion recently about the "ranking" of
mitzvot, do these "fences"(don't do this for fear you might forget and do
something else that is a malacha) rand lower than actual malalchas? Do
they incur the same Toraitic or Rabbinic punishment as the malacha?
Wendy Baker
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>One of the prohibited actions on Shbbat is fixing a utensil.
This is no so much a response to what you write above but rather to the
message you responded to. You are correct in what you say regarding the
fixing of a utensi. However we can not make "gezeiros" (more fences)
regarding what may or may not be used. We may as well not read in case the
page rips and we will glue it together. Or like mentioned we may as well not
use door knobs on the shabbat because the screw may fall out or loosen and
we will tighten it.
I am at this point not aware of any specific "melacha" that would prohibit
skating on the sabbath. There is however a category called "oovdah d'chol".
I will leave it to others to translate. This category is quite touchy to
some :-)
Herman Rubin
>The answer is, from what I've seen, it's ok to drive on the Shabbat to
>perform any mitzvah.
>The question I ask you is: why is driving on shabbat forbidden in your
>tradition but walking is not? It's more restful to walk? Where is it
>said that my Nissan Altima is a forbidden machine to operate on the
>Shabbat?
I ask the same question (different vehicle) and come up with
the same answer. The Orthodox do not.
Their answer is that the forbidden work is not related to
effort, but is a specific class of actions. The argument,
often repeated here, is that driving involves fire, which
is forbidden, and also that one is completing connections,
likewise forbidden.
As I have said often before, I do not accept this. To
the Orthodox, what is the Hebrew for effort exerted? It
is not avodah.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>What about a wheelchair? An electric one would presumably be forbidden, but what
>about a manual one? Isn't this similar to a bicycle in basic principle, and it
>could certainly also suffer mechanical breakdown. The user, obviously being unable
>to walk, would have no other way to get to shul.
Good point. Wheel chairs are used on the sabbath and holidays. However, stop
bringing up the point of going to shul. If a wheel chair would be prohibited
then it would not become permitted in order to go to shul.
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>So this is one of those "fence" issues (puting a fence around the Torah or
>the action) Appropos of the discussion recently about the "ranking" of
>mitzvot, do these "fences"(don't do this for fear you might forget and do
>something else that is a malacha) rand lower than actual malalchas? Do
>they incur the same Toraitic or Rabbinic punishment as the malacha?
>
transgressing a "fence" on purpose is "misa b'dai shomaim" (death..can't
adequately translate the rest. The punishment for a malacha differs.
Eliyahu
<agor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9363oj$qec$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> The answer is, from what I've seen, it's ok to drive on the Shabbat to
> perform any mitzvah.
>
> The question I ask you is: why is driving on shabbat forbidden in your
> tradition but walking is not? It's more restful to walk? Where is it
> said that my Nissan Altima is a forbidden machine to operate on the
> Shabbat?
>
May I assume from the use of "your tradition" that you are not Jewish?
1. It's not a matter of tradition, but of halacha, or Jewish religious law.
2. Relative ease or restfulness has nothing to do with it. Restrictions on
what we do and where we do it are based on instructions in Torah and would
appear confusing if viewed just from the perspective of convenience or ease.
For example, we cannot carry anything in a public place, even an empty box,
but at the same time it is permissible to move boxes filled with prayer
books within the home or shul.
3. The prohibition on your Altima is based not on what it is, but on
specific actions taking place when you drive it. The most obvious is the
prohibition against lighting a fire. Every time a spark plug goes off, it
lights a small fire within that cylinder. There are many others as well, but
one is enough.
Herman Rubin
Any legal system needs the equivalent of an Oral Law; nobody has
denied it. The Karaites claim that they had a very similar Oral
Law to the Rabbinites, but that they did not consider it to come
from God. If it is not from God, one can argue that it is an
erroneous interpretation of the Written Law, and can therefore
be changed easily.
The Orthodox, in fact, have a similar view about their exegesis.
They take the Oral Law as from God through Moses, and accept the
Tannaim (if I have it correct) as the only legitimate ones to
be able to write down this law. The Amoraim, who came after the
writing of the Mishnah, cannot change what the Tannim wrote, and
the Rishonim, who came after the Talmud, are bound by that, and
the Shulkhan Arukh, which ended this period, is binding on the
Acharonim, the "ones after".
My view always was that the Oral Law is how people interpret the
Torah, and that this is not fixed. Alex and I are using our
judgment to interpret it, and at least I claim that the rabbis
were trying to hard to use what they did not understand; Torah
can only be understood through knowledge, and this includes
knowledge of the physical universe.
Harry Weiss
deletions
>> >them they would drift away entirely. Of course that
> doesn't
>> >entirely explain the C ruling because plenty of people
> drive to O
>> >shuls on shabbat as well, but at O shuls you have to park
> around the
>> >corner and at C shuls you can use the parking lot.
> Perhaps you might want to drive a ways to Newton Centre on a
> Shabbat morning and see for yourself if people drive to O
> shuls. The answer is extremely clear if you're on Comm Ave.
> Marjorie
No one is questioning that there are people who drive to O shuls on
Shabbat. (I go to 2 different shuls and I would not be surprised if the
maority drive - except for bad weather,. then the walkers make it and the
drivers don't) Just going to an O shul and being affiliated does not
necesasrily make someone O. The second thing is that all of those who do
drive know they are violating the rules. In C those who drive to shul and
home with a stop at McDonalds for lunch feel they are being fully
observant. That is the difference.
>> >
>> Colin, I have no idea why you made that statement above.
>> There may be plenty of people who drive to O shuls on the
> shabbat as well. I
>> have never seen any, and I don't know of any, but what is
> your point? You
>> are not saying that there are O people who drive th shul
> on the shabbat, are
>> you? That is simply not true. Any individual who drives to
> shul on shabbat
>> is by definition not an O. Correct me if I am wrong.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Harry Weiss
> Binyamin Dissen wrote:
Actually Tzomet institute designed an electric wheel chair that is okay
for shabbat. There is no problem with a wheel chair except for carrying
unless you are in an eruv area. I don't know if a skate or scooter is
prohibited. It may or may not be. We tossed some ideas that could be a
problem. Mr. Ackerman did remind us that one does not make a new gezeroh.
In the Chabad shul the Rbbis young child plays with his scooter on
shabbos. I don't know if that owuld be allowed for an older person.
Harry Weiss
> :> :> alex
> :> Wendy Baker
The law prohbiting adding Mitzvot requires keeping fences, stringencies
etc. sperate from Torah Mitzvot. I can't answer regarding punishments
since I don't know what punishments if any there would be for these items.
Joe Slater
>> When you say "rabbinically forbidden" you can't mean it in the same
>> sense that carrying in a carmelit is "rabbinically forbidden". What
>> you must mean is that certain modern rabbis told their followers not
>> to do it. There's certainly not any gezera against it, because rabbis
>> today have no power to issue gezerot. I wouldn't do it myself, but is
>> there any *genuine* reason not to do so?
jo...@cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
wrote:
>This is a fun question. When bicycling, the obvious problems that one
>might be tempted to fix are: A blown tire. Repair requires that you
>have a patch kit and a pump. A flat tire, requires that you have a pump.
>Maladjusted brakes, repaired by twisting the ferrule at the end of the
>brake cable to change the cable length a few millimeters. Chain off the
>sprocket, requires fingers and a willingness to get grease on yorself.
These are problems that may arise, but the fact that a problem may
arise does not mean that a prohibition exists. My point is that
there's a whole class of rabbinic prohibitions, but we do not
presently have the authority to add to these prohibitions. We might
choose not to do a particular action, but unless it already comes
under a Torah or Rabbinic prohibition then we can't really say it's
prohibited.
>I cannot see, for certain, how putting a chain back on its sprocket is
>forbidden, nor can I see, for certain, how twisting a cable ferrule is
>forbidden. Opening a door by turning the doorknob seems as dangerous,
>or picking up a book that fell off a table.
One of the classes of forbidden work is "makeh b'patish". It literally
means "tapping with a hammer" but what it includes is all acts which
complete the manufacture of an object. Putting a cable on the chain
might be subsumed under this prohibition.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Lisa Beth wrote:
>>
>> Or actually, something for Conservatives to ask their LCRs.
snip
>> So... this week's homework is for you to ask your LCR if you can drive
>> to visit your parents on Shabbat. After all, there's a commandment to
>> honor one's parents. Or if it's okay to drive to a souphouse to feed
>> the needy on Shabbat. Tzedaka is a mitzvah, too.
>
> Actually, this brings something to mind that I've been wondering about
> for a while; is there a, I don't know, weighted list of the mitzvot?
Yes and No. (Don't you _love_ clear, unambiguous answers?)
> I know this sounds a little silly, but bear with me: my understanding
> is, while we are obligated to perform *all* the mitzvot, some can take
> precedence over others in certain situations. The example we've seen
> here most recently is that of saving a life on Shabbos.
True. In certain circumstances a "minor" mitzvah overrides a "major"
one.
> It also came up during a Shabbat dinner discussion a few weeks ago.
> We were discussing a particular mitzvah (and bad on me for not
> remembering the exact one; I'm sorry),
Oy Yitzchak, don't be so hard on yourself. I'm sitting here admiring
your Shabbos table discussion topics and you're knocking yourself for
not remembering which particular mitzvah was discussed?
> and someone quoted a rabbi (I think it was Rashi) that that
> particular mitzvah was equivalent to all the other mitzvot put
> together. Which reminded me that I had heard that statement made
> about a *number* of mitzvot (e.g., "That which is hateful to you,
> do not do to your neighbor; the rest is commentary; go and study.")
> Which made me wonder, has anyone ever weighted them?
Your question is discussed in the Mishna in Pirkei Avot, and its
commentaries. That is the source of what you wrote "while we are
obligated to perform *all* the mitzvot". The phrase used is "One
should run to an "easy" mitzva as to a "hard" one, because one does
not know the reward for mitzvot".
First of all, you have to differentiate between "positive" (thou
shalt) and "negative" (thou shalt not). For the latter, we can make
a "weighting". Since the _punishment_ for abrogating a negative
commandment is listed, we can judge the severity by the severity of
the punishment. (BTW, as has often been said, the actual carrying out
of the punishment is not done at all nowadays. It was difficult to
carry out even in Temple times, when the Sanhedrin was in session. A
big point of the punishments listed is indeed to show the severity of
the transgression)
For "positive" commandments there is no similar list of rewards.
That's why the Mishna says "run to [both]". There are two mitzvot
that have their reward spelled out. One is exceptionally easy to
perform, it's almost a "throw-away" mitzvah, if I can use the term.
The other is _exceptionaly_ hard if not impossible to fulfill
completely, and is incumbent on everybody. This reinforces the notion
that we don't know the "reward" for mitzvot.
OTOH, it _does_ say about many mitzvot that they are "equivalent" to
all the 613. There are many meanings to this.
Thanks for a great post and bringing up an interesting question.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Micha Berger
: What about a wheelchair? An electric one would presumably be forbidden,
: but what about a manual one? Isn't this similar to a bicycle in basic
: principle, and it could certainly also suffer mechanical breakdown. The
: user, obviously being unable to walk, would have no other way to get
: to shul.
AFAIK, the reason not to ride a bicycle is simply "it's not shabbosdik".
The halachah in question isn't that of melachah (creative work) but of
preserving the spirit of the day.
It's not an issue for wheelchairs and other necessary devices.
I have mentioned in the past that I have a cousin who uses an electric
wheelchair designed by Machon Tzomet in such a way that her involvement
with electricity is indirect enough to be permissable in this kind of
situation. See <http://moreshet.co.il/zomet/index-e.html>.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Micha Berger
: tradition but walking is not? It's more restful to walk? Where is it
: said that my Nissan Altima is a forbidden machine to operate on the
: Shabbat?
It says "do not burn a fire". A spark plug igniting gas is an example of
that. The Torah didn't have to spell out each possible instance, did it?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote in message
>>Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>: We've heard over and over again about the Conservative ruling that
>>: it's just fine and dandy to violate all sorts of Torah laws by driving
>>: to synagogue on Shabbat. The obvious implication of this utterly
>>: anti-halakhic ruling is that it's more important to go to shul than it
>>: is to refrain from violating Shabbat.
>>
>>"objective reality."
>
> Richard,
>
> The Israeli Masorti movement has ruled that one may not drive to
> shul on Shabat but the American Conservative movement has taken a
> different position.
Oy, Maurie you're new here. You don't recognize Lisa and Richard's
posting style. They each are looking for the title "Most able to be
factual while totally misleading". When they respond to each other
the results are all the more unintelligable to the uninitiated.
To translate. Lisa's claim, besides the "fine and dandy" was that the
C ruling allows violation of "all sorts of _Torah_ (emphasis mine
M.S.) laws". Richard retorts "There is no such Conservative ruling"
because according to the ruling as explained by Richard, there is no
violation of "Torah" law. Of course, I could be mistaken and there's
a _different_ esoteric point to allow Richard to make his claim.
Welcome to SCJM. :-)
Micha Berger
:>Actually, this brings something to mind that I've been wondering about
:>for a while; is there a, I don't know, weighted list of the mitzvot?
The mishnah says that one needs to put as much care into "minor" mitzvos
as one does into "more major" ones, for one doesn't know the reward of
a mitzvah. (As the adjectives belie the statement, I put them in quotes.)
The value of a given act is situational -- how hard was it to do
("according to the pain, so is the reward")? What did this particular
person need? Was this something he does from habit? Etc...
: perhaps the study of Torah. This comes from a bit of talmud included in the
: liturgy just after the morning torah blessings.
Actually, what the mishnah says is that Torah study is equal to the
other mitzvos listed in that mishnah -- those where "a person consumes
their profits in this world, but the capital waits for him in the
world-to-come".
Micha Berger
: I remember the one with three, From Micha,
: require of you, but to do justice, and to love loving mercy, and to
: walk humbly with your God?
: (comments on the Davka use of 'loving mercy' here? Misprint?
: Combination with loving kindness?)
I would have rendered "ahavas chesed" "love of kindness".
-mi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>On 7 Jan 2001 23:48:40 GMT, Marc Andrews <nom...@me.pls> wrote:
>: What about a wheelchair? An electric one would presumably be forbidden,
>: but what about a manual one? Isn't this similar to a bicycle in basic
>: principle, and it could certainly also suffer mechanical breakdown. The
>: user, obviously being unable to walk, would have no other way to get
>: to shul.
>
>AFAIK, the reason not to ride a bicycle is simply "it's not shabbosdik".
>The halachah in question isn't that of melachah (creative work) but of
>preserving the spirit of the day.
In what way is it not in the spirit of the day? What is the wording of
the ruling which says that it is not in the spirit of the day? Who
made said ruling? On what precise definition of the spirit of the day
is it based?
-Naomi
Yitzchak Moran
>
> In C those who drive to shul and
> home with a stop at McDonalds for lunch feel they are being fully
> observant. That is the difference.
For the conservative Jews that I have spoken with on this topic (not
a lot, I admit, but more than 10), that is not a true statement. Many
of the Conservative Jews that I know will not eat at McDonalds. A few
walk to shul (most drive). Of those that drive, a number greater than
0 drive only to and from, with no side trips.
Just a data point.
--
Yitzchak Moran | "...for what reason was the School of Hillel entitled
Professional Dad | to have the law determined according to their rulings?
from the Home Office | Because they were kindly and humble, and because they
dou...@earthlink.net | studied their own rulings and those of Shammai..."
Sheldon Glickler
"Yitzchak Moran" <dou...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:93cp82$689$1...@condor.nj.org...
> Harry Weiss wrote:
> >
> > In C those who drive to shul and
> > home with a stop at McDonalds for lunch feel they are being fully
> > observant. That is the difference.
>
> For the conservative Jews that I have spoken with on this topic (not
> a lot, I admit, but more than 10), that is not a true statement. Many
> of the Conservative Jews that I know will not eat at McDonalds. A few
Hell, I do my very best as well to never eat at McDonalds <g>.
Shelly
Henry Goodman
"Sheldon Ackerman" <acke...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote in message
news:slrn95i504....@amanda.dorsai.org...
Well in an actual case I know our LOR forbade somebody to have a wheelchair
pushed by a non-Jew (we do not yet have an Eruv here) but later said he
would have allowed it if the questioner had said it was for the purpose of
going to shul.
I understand that manually operated wheel chairs are OK if the user operates
it himself (usually with hands) but another Jew may not push it; OK on
YomTov of course.
Of course we are talking of cases where the user is physically incapable of
walking, he is also allowed a walking stick if he can't walk without it.
None of this seems to apply to bicycles or skateboards.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: posting style. They each are looking for the title "Most able to be
: factual while totally misleading". When they respond to each other
: the results are all the more unintelligable to the uninitiated.
unclear, I apologize, and will gladly attempt to clarify them for anyone
who doesn't understand. I have posted enough times my philosophy that given
the nature of the medium, in which there are no non-verbal cues of the types
found in normal conversation, it behooves all of us to choose our words
carefully and to make sure that we say what we mean. And I am frankly
surprised that Moshe would think anything else of me.
: To translate. Lisa's claim, besides the "fine and dandy" was that the
: C ruling allows violation of "all sorts of _Torah_ (emphasis mine
: M.S.) laws". Richard retorts "There is no such Conservative ruling"
: because according to the ruling as explained by Richard, there is no
: violation of "Torah" law. Of course, I could be mistaken and there's
: a _different_ esoteric point to allow Richard to make his claim.
I was making no esoteric point. The Artist Formerly Known as Lisa Aaronson
made a positive claim, namely, that there is a Conservative ruling that says
that it is "fine and dandy" [sic] to drive on Shabbat. Her use of that term
implies that she thinks that the responsum says that it is absolutely
acceptable to drive on Shabbat.
In fact, the responsum (which she has obviously never read, or at least
not comprehended) says quite the opposite. It says that given the current
dire circumstances, we are *forced* to allow a *certain subset* of people
to drive. The responsum explicitly states that it would be preferable if
permitted to drive would refrain from doing so.
As I have posted more times than I can remember, I object strongly to the
responsum, and it was the implications of that responsum that led me to
cease affiliating with the Conservative movement. I happen to believe that
it is possible to find reasons to object to it on the basis of what it
actually says, and that lying about its contents does no one any good.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
Marc Korpus
Getting exercise is a matter of health of course and people have limited
time off work in which to engage in it. I'm a little concerned if Shabbat
and yom tov prohibitions are routinely assumed to preclude any form of
physical exercise more strenuous than a sedate walk in the park. How much
of this assumption genuinely rests on Jewish law, and how much on
preconceptions?
For example, even if bicycling out of doors were problemetical, how about
working out on an indoor bike? You will never get a flat tire. Would there
be any objection to putting on running shoes and going out for a jog?
Lifting weights at the health club? Have the rabbis ever said that "you
must not raise a sweat on the Sabbath"?
Marc Korpus
--
Men are much more apt to agree in what they do than in what they think --
Goethe
Micha Berger
:>AFAIK, the reason not to ride a bicycle is simply "it's not shabbosdik".
:>The halachah in question isn't that of melachah (creative work) but of
:>preserving the spirit of the day.
: In what way is it not in the spirit of the day? What is the wording of
: the ruling which says that it is not in the spirit of the day?
I don't know. Also it's a number of rulings, not just one. The sense I got
from osmosis (meaning, ideas floating around the community that I can't
remember where I picked them up) was that it was deemed too similar in
mood to horseback riding. (The latter is Rabbinically prohibited, lest one
tear off a switch while riding.)
Interesting, though, that the one time I appeal to the spirit of the law
I get objection on that as well. Shabbos is somewhat unique in that there
is a concept of "sh'vus" -- a codified letter-of-the-law saying that one
must preserve the restfull spirit of the day. The spirit and letter of the
law therefore blur.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>On 8 Jan 2001 16:14:43 GMT, Naomi Gayle Rivkis <nri...@concentric.net> wrote:
>:>AFAIK, the reason not to ride a bicycle is simply "it's not shabbosdik".
>:>The halachah in question isn't that of melachah (creative work) but of
>:>preserving the spirit of the day.
>
>: In what way is it not in the spirit of the day? What is the wording of
>: the ruling which says that it is not in the spirit of the day?
>
>I don't know. Also it's a number of rulings, not just one. The sense I got
>from osmosis (meaning, ideas floating around the community that I can't
>remember where I picked them up) was that it was deemed too similar in
>mood to horseback riding. (The latter is Rabbinically prohibited, lest one
>tear off a switch while riding.)
Since when is "picking it up by osmosis" halakhic method, or "ideas
floating around the community" a recognized source? You sound Reform.
>Interesting, though, that the one time I appeal to the spirit of the law
>I get objection on that as well. Shabbos is somewhat unique in that there
>is a concept of "sh'vus" -- a codified letter-of-the-law saying that one
>must preserve the restfull spirit of the day. The spirit and letter of the
>law therefore blur.
If you hold a double standard you can expect to be called on it. I
have nothing against the concept that there is an obligation to
preserve the restful spirit of the day, but in Orthodox terms I would
expect that restful spirit to be explicitly codified and the thoughts
and mood that are required spelled out in detail.
>-mi
-Naomi
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>These are problems that may arise, but the fact that a problem may
>arise does not mean that a prohibition exists. My point is that
>there's a whole class of rabbinic prohibitions, but we do not
>presently have the authority to add to these prohibitions. We might
>choose not to do a particular action, but unless it already comes
>under a Torah or Rabbinic prohibition then we can't really say it's
>prohibited.
100% correct, Joe!
>
>One of the classes of forbidden work is "makeh b'patish". It literally
>means "tapping with a hammer" but what it includes is all acts which
>complete the manufacture of an object. Putting a cable on the chain
>might be subsumed under this prohibition.
>
It might and then again it might not :-)
Could be the first time you've done it you have the makeh b'patish.
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>Well in an actual case I know our LOR forbade somebody to have a wheelchair
>pushed by a non-Jew (we do not yet have an Eruv here) but later said he
>would have allowed it if the questioner had said it was for the purpose of
>going to shul.
There are loads of T'shuvos on the topic of a wheelchair being used on the
Sabbath. There are guidelines when a d'rabonon becomes permissible for the
purpose of a mitzvah.
>
>I understand that manually operated wheel chairs are OK if the user operates
>it himself (usually with hands) but another Jew may not push it; OK on
>YomTov of course.
Correct, another Jew may not push it on the Sabbath, but how about it being
pushed by a non jew which is the usual case. Again you would have to ask
your local rabbi. There are even those who claim that a wheelchair may be a
r'shus within itself if it is of certain dimensions. Much too complicated
for my brain to digest.
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>In what way is it not in the spirit of the day? What is the wording of
>the ruling which says that it is not in the spirit of the day? Who
>made said ruling? On what precise definition of the spirit of the day
>is it based?
>
> -Naomi
That is the term I used in one of my postings. It is know as "oovdah
d'chol." It has been used quite extensively in setting halacha standards. I
do not know when it was first used, but I do think it is used int eh
Shulchan Aruch as well. Reb Moshe in one of his Tshuvos said that something
was prohibited because of oovdah d'chol. It was a case of having machinery
in a factory run automatically over the sabbath. If I am correct, R' Moshe
did not really allow the use of a time clock as well for lights. (someone
please correct me if I am wrong.
Micha Berger
:>I don't know. Also it's a number of rulings, not just one. The sense I got
:>from osmosis (meaning, ideas floating around the community that I can't
: Since when is "picking it up by osmosis" halakhic method, or "ideas
: floating around the community" a recognized source? You sound Reform.
It's not, Naomi; I was pleading ignorance. As I said in the first sentence:
I don't know. I was commenting based upon an idea I picked up, which is the
closest I have to information that would actually answer your question.
: If you hold a double standard you can expect to be called on it. I
: have nothing against the concept that there is an obligation to
: preserve the restful spirit of the day, but in Orthodox terms I would
: expect that restful spirit to be explicitly codified and the thoughts
: and mood that are required spelled out in detail.
There are codified rules, and then things beyond those rules. I had said
Shabbos is unique, but I since thought of other examples.
- Modest attire. There are codified rules, some of which don't fit what we
think of in the west today as "modesty". (Such as married women covering
their hair.) But a skin-tight skirt which might fit those rules still
wouldn't be halachically permissable.
- "Thou shalt be holy, for I am holy." This is a rule prohibiting being
"disgusting within [what would otherwise be] the laws of the Torah". In
short -- be a mentch! By definition, it can't be codified. We're
talking about things like eating something that was slaughtered but
hadn't died yet; as well as flouting business norms to cheat another
in business. It's VERY broad.
Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879
by Marc Korpus <st...@optonline.net>:
> Getting exercise is a matter of health of course and people have limited
> time off work in which to engage in it. I'm a little concerned if Shabbat
> and yom tov prohibitions are routinely assumed to preclude any form of
> physical exercise more strenuous than a sedate walk in the park.
I've seen recent Orthodox commentaries on the question of playing baseball
on Shabbat. Some commentators apparently have suggested that it might be
a good thing, probably better, for many purposes, than a long afternoon
nap. I only saw second hand reports on this in the Forward, but I'll
assume they assumed that the field itself was in an eruv (not horribly
difficult to achieve if the field is fenced and gated). The permissability
of going out to retrieve a fly ball that goes over the fence wasn't
addressed.
Doug Jones
jo...@cs.uiowa.edu
agor...@my-deja.com
The explicit prohibition in the Torah is that one may not light a fire
on Shabbos. Fine. Is a car lighting a fire? A gasoline engine,
perhaps (though debatable). An electric engine, no. Taking a electric
powered public transport is OK, as are the new electric-powered cars.
Plus, what I see as a huge problem in Judaism, is the inability to rank
laws. Perhaps driving on Shabbat is a minor sin, while driving to
visit one's parents is perhaps a major mitzvah and thus, it is
acceptable if the driving is done to do mitzvahs (at least, major
ones).
In article <9391mk$jv0$1...@news.panix.com>,
Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote:
> agor...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The answer is, from what I've seen, it's ok to drive on the Shabbat
to
> > perform any mitzvah.
>
> > The question I ask you is: why is driving on shabbat forbidden in
your
> > tradition but walking is not? It's more restful to walk? Where is
it
> > said that my Nissan Altima is a forbidden machine to operate on the
> > Shabbat?
>
> If you follow Judaism it is prohibited to drive on Shabbat. Driving
cause
> fire in the engine among numerous other violations. What is
prohbited is
> not what WE decide is restful, it is what G-d in the Torah said is
> prohbited. It does nto need to say specifically you Nissan Alitima
jsut
> like it does not have say specifically one my not murder alex, it
> sufficient that says one may not murder.
>
> > alex
>
> > In article <3a54e8cf...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> > star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
> >> Or actually, something for Conservatives to ask their LCRs.
> >>
> >> We've heard over and over again about the Conservative ruling that
> >> it's just fine and dandy to violate all sorts of Torah laws by
driving
> >> to synagogue on Shabbat. The obvious implication of this utterly
> >> anti-halakhic ruling is that it's more important to go to shul
than it
> >> is to refrain from violating Shabbat.
> >>
> >> So... this week's homework is for you to ask your LCR if you can
drive
> >> to visit your parents on Shabbat. After all, there's a
commandment to
> >> honor one's parents. Or if it's okay to drive to a souphouse to
feed
> >> the needy on Shabbat. Tzedaka is a mitzvah, too.
> >>
> >> When you find out that the answer is "no", your next assignment is
to
> >> ask yourself what it is, precisely, about going to shul that was so
> >> important to the Conservative movement that they put it above...
well,
> >> basically above the entirety of the Torah.
> >>
> >> The answer is pretty obvious, once you think about it. No
synagogue
> >> attendence means pretty soon, no synagogue membership. An
inability
> >> to claim to be a huge movement. A loss in revenues.
> >>
> >> There's no ideology or theology involved in this ruling. It was a
> >> cynical decision to mislead tens of thousands of people into
thinking
> >> that acts which are clearly violations of Shabbat are okay. It's
the
> >> ends justifying the means. Except they never really do, do they.
> >>
> >> Lisa
> >>
>
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
>
> --
> Harry J. Weiss
> hjw...@panix.com
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Lisa Beth
>"maurie fox-warren" <m...@shore.net> writes:
>> sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote in message
>>>Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>: We've heard over and over again about the Conservative ruling that
>>>: it's just fine and dandy to violate all sorts of Torah laws by driving
>>>: to synagogue on Shabbat. The obvious implication of this utterly
>>>: anti-halakhic ruling is that it's more important to go to shul than it
>>>: is to refrain from violating Shabbat.
>>>
>>>There is no such Conservative ruling. So much for Ms. !Aaronson and
>>>"objective reality."
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> The Israeli Masorti movement has ruled that one may not drive to
>> shul on Shabat but the American Conservative movement has taken a
>> different position.
>
>Oy, Maurie you're new here. You don't recognize Lisa and Richard's
>posting style.
This is the example of your "picking". You try to be cute, but it
just doesn't work.
>They each are looking for the title "Most able to be
>factual while totally misleading". When they respond to each other
>the results are all the more unintelligable to the uninitiated.
It was totally understandable. You really should stop attributing
your failure to comprehend to everyone else.
>To translate. Lisa's claim, besides the "fine and dandy" was that the
>C ruling allows violation of "all sorts of _Torah_ (emphasis mine
>M.S.) laws". Richard retorts "There is no such Conservative ruling"
>because according to the ruling as explained by Richard, there is no
>violation of "Torah" law. Of course, I could be mistaken and there's
>a _different_ esoteric point to allow Richard to make his claim.
Wrong. You didn't even come close to what the disagreement was about.
I said that the Conservatives let you drive to shul on Shabbat even if
there's a frum shul right next door. That it's only if there's no
*Conservative* synagogue within walking distance that you can drive.
Richard disagreed (and is wrong).
Your reading comprehension has gotten worse and worse lately, Moshe,
and your nasty comments stemming from your miscomprehension have
gotten worse as well. It's a shame.
Lisa
meirm...@erols.com
Moran <dou...@earthlink.net> posted:
>Harry Weiss wrote:
>>
>> In C those who drive to shul and
>> home with a stop at McDonalds for lunch feel they are being fully
>> observant. That is the difference.
>
>For the conservative Jews that I have spoken with on this topic (not
>a lot, I admit, but more than 10), that is not a true statement. Many
>of the Conservative Jews that I know will not eat at McDonalds. A few
>walk to shul (most drive). Of those that drive, a number greater than
>0 drive only to and from, with no side trips.
>
>Just a data point.
There is an enormous range. I think it is almost to be expected that
if A and C are at extremes, the variation in their members' practices
will be half as wide as B which in the middle.
Anyhow I know a couple who send their kid to Schecter day school since
K or pre-K, but who would eat at McDonalds with the kid. The kid is 7
now and I wonder how much longer until he refuses to eat there! Of
course it is not certain even now, but without Schecter and without
the parents keeping kosher at home, I doubt the kid would ever quit
unless he became O. (I don't think they go to McD on Shabbos but
they might go to a kosher=*style* delicatessen.)
I also met one young C who would walk up five(? 8?) flights rather
than take an elevator. Earlier we talked about how such people
sometimes eventually find themselves more comfortable in O.
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me only, please say, so I won't
e-mail by removing QQQ wait forever for a post and then forget to
answer the email at all. If you post &
mail, please say, so I will wait for the post.
meirm...@erols.com
<lro...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
><agor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9363oj$qec$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>>
>> The answer is, from what I've seen, it's ok to drive on the Shabbat to
>> perform any mitzvah.
>>
>Only if you look at the question from a Reform or Reconstructionist POV.
>
>> The question I ask you is: why is driving on shabbat forbidden in your
>> tradition but walking is not? It's more restful to walk? Where is it
>> said that my Nissan Altima is a forbidden machine to operate on the
>> Shabbat?
>>
>May I assume from the use of "your tradition" that you are not Jewish?
>
>1. It's not a matter of tradition, but of halacha, or Jewish religious law.
I could look at tradition in more than one way. I'm not even sure
that O too don't call it tradition (??). Tradition means given across
the generation boundary (from one generation to another). It can
include more than one sort of thing. In some places the tradition of 6
year olds is to play ring around the rosie. For adults it can mean
having turkey on thanksgiving even no one thinks there is a law that
one must do so. For Jews, the most important part of our tradition is
law, the halacha which is given over from one generation to another.
We also have less important traditions.
I remember one person commenting on, We 3 have had a tradition for the
last 5 years to meet each July 1 at Joe's house. That's incorrect,
because as long as the same people are doing it, it's not a tradition,
not until younger people do it too. It's the difference, in English,
between customary and traditional.
[good stuff snipped]
dfb...@panix.com
> I'm glad this conversation about bicycling on Shabbat has
gotten into gear.
I'm not qualified to answer this question but:
Marc!
When did you start posting here?
Hi!
Marc is my older brother, you see. We are taking over. We
are.
Debra Fran Korpus Baker
agor...@my-deja.com
> May I assume from the use of "your tradition" that you are not Jewish?
You may assume that I'm not Orthodox. For some here, that means I'm
not Jewish. Oh well.
> 1. It's not a matter of tradition, but of halacha, or Jewish
>religious law.
I, personally, think that there's little difference.
> 2. Relative ease or restfulness has nothing to do with it.
Why not? Far too often, Judaism has ignored the effects of its ever-
increasing rabbinic pronouncements on the faithful. Most other
religions are more careful about multiplying restrictions.
>Restrictions on
> what we do and where we do it are based on instructions in Torah and
would
> appear confusing if viewed just from the perspective of convenience
or ease.
> For example, we cannot carry anything in a public place, even an
empty box,
> but at the same time it is permissible to move boxes filled with
prayer
> books within the home or shul.
> 3. The prohibition on your Altima is based not on what it is, but on
> specific actions taking place when you drive it. The most obvious is
the
> prohibition against lighting a fire. Every time a spark plug goes
off, it
> lights a small fire within that cylinder. There are many others as
well, but
> one is enough.
But that's one interpretation of the Biblical text (it does not clearly
state that one may not drive). I'm not saying it's wrong (in fact I
agree with it), but who is to say that is the correct intrepretation?
The problem you're facing is not convincing me, but convincing the
millions who don't feel that intrepretation is very compelling.
> --
> Eliyahu Rooff
> www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
> RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
>
> The explicit prohibition in the Torah is that one may not light a fire
> on Shabbos. Fine. Is a car lighting a fire? A gasoline engine,
> perhaps (though debatable). An electric engine, no. Taking a electric
> powered public transport is OK, as are the new electric-powered cars.
There are AT LEAST half a dozen other biblical violations caused
by driving on shabbat (*borer*, *tochen*, *makeh b'patish*, etc.).
Just using the oil filter engenders 3.
Josh
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> I'm glad this conversation about bicycling on Shabbat has gotten into gear.
>
> Getting exercise is a matter of health of course and people have limited
> time off work in which to engage in it. I'm a little concerned if Shabbat
> and yom tov prohibitions are routinely assumed to preclude any form of
> physical exercise more strenuous than a sedate walk in the park. How much
> of this assumption genuinely rests on Jewish law, and how much on
> preconceptions?
>
[I'm not sure if my first posting made it]
The talmud Shabbat 1131 based on a verse in Isaiah 58:13 rabbinically
prohibits running (except for a mitzva like going to the synagogue).
Exercise is permitted as long as one doesn't work up a sweat (Shulchan
Aruch ORACH CHAIM 328:42 based on the gemara in Shabbat 147a).
Josh
Jonathan J. Baker
>I'm glad this conversation about bicycling on Shabbat has gotten into gear.
>Getting exercise is a matter of health of course and people have limited
>time off work in which to engage in it. I'm a little concerned if Shabbat
>and yom tov prohibitions are routinely assumed to preclude any form of
>physical exercise more strenuous than a sedate walk in the park. How much
>of this assumption genuinely rests on Jewish law, and how much on
>preconceptions?
>For example, even if bicycling out of doors were problemetical, how about
>working out on an indoor bike? You will never get a flat tire. Would there
>be any objection to putting on running shoes and going out for a jog?
>Lifting weights at the health club? Have the rabbis ever said that "you
>must not raise a sweat on the Sabbath"?
Welcome to SCJM. Now there are four of us on the group at once
(Marc is Debbie's (my wife's) brother).
AFAIK, exercise in general on Shabbat is a shvut (question of restful
activity). For example, you can move your furniture around inside your
house all day on Shabbat, but you can't carry a fork outside - it's not
the physical strenuousness that's a problem there, it's the question of
carrying - that's the basic law. However, the rabbis would say not to
move the furniture around all day because of shvut - the need to rest.
So too here. If the exercise is for exercise, then no, you can't
do it, because it's not restful. However, if it's something you
enjoy doing, then do it. So a brisk walk around the park, if it's
something you would do on other days for enjoyment, is fine. If
it's something you only do for exercise, no.
This leaves out the practical problems of swimming (taking a bath,
wringing water out of the towel and/or the bathing suit and/or the
hair) and of bicycling (fixing the bicycle, carrying). But if you
like taking a long walk down by the Raritan to enjoy the scenery,
and it's just incidental that it's also good for the cardiovascular
stuff, gezuntahey. Pushups, OTOH, are probably out. Although, I've
been known to do pushups and leg-stretches to warm up for leading
services. Then, I figger, it's a machshir mitzva (preparation for
a mitzva), hence OK.
BTW, Marc, if you still read SHM, Dick Wisan is Mom's brother.
--
Jonathan Baker | Happy [H|'Ch']an[u|'oo'][c[c]|k[k]]a[h]
jjb...@panix.com | Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
Jonathan J. Baker
>In article <net>, Marc Korpus <st...@optonline.net> writes:
>> I'm glad this conversation about bicycling on Shabbat has gotten into gear.
>> Getting exercise is a matter of health of course and people have limited
>> time off work in which to engage in it. I'm a little concerned if Shabbat
>> and yom tov prohibitions are routinely assumed to preclude any form of
>> physical exercise more strenuous than a sedate walk in the park. How much
>> of this assumption genuinely rests on Jewish law, and how much on
>> preconceptions?
>[I'm not sure if my first posting made it]
>The talmud Shabbat 1131 based on a verse in Isaiah 58:13 rabbinically
>prohibits running (except for a mitzva like going to the synagogue).
>Exercise is permitted as long as one doesn't work up a sweat (Shulchan
>Aruch ORACH CHAIM 328:42 based on the gemara in Shabbat 147a).
See the article in the EDAH Journal v1n1 on baseball playing on Shabbat:
<http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/berman.pdf>
or in HTML:
Jonathan J. Baker
From: BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
To: jjb...@panix.com
Subject: Re: Bicycles on Shabbat (Was: Question for the Conservatives)
Forwarded from Josh Backon:
>From: jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>Subject:Re: Bicycles on Shabbat (Was: Question for the Conservatives)
>Date: 8 Jan 2001 23:04:58 GMT
>Message-ID:<93dh36$dpa$1...@panix6.panix.com>
>In <rg> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>>In article <net>, Marc Korpus <st...@optonline.net> writes:
>>> I'm glad this conversation about bicycling on Shabbat has gotten into gear.
>
>>> Getting exercise is a matter of health of course and people have limited
>>> time off work in which to engage in it. I'm a little concerned if Shabbat
>>> and yom tov prohibitions are routinely assumed to preclude any form of
>>> physical exercise more strenuous than a sedate walk in the park. How much
>>> of this assumption genuinely rests on Jewish law, and how much on
>>> preconceptions?
>
>>[I'm not sure if my first posting made it]
>
>>The talmud Shabbat 1131 based on a verse in Isaiah 58:13 rabbinically
>>prohibits running (except for a mitzva like going to the synagogue).
>
>>Exercise is permitted as long as one doesn't work up a sweat (Shulchan
>>Aruch ORACH CHAIM 328:42 based on the gemara in Shabbat 147a).
[UNFORTUNATELY, I CANNOT FOLLOWUP YOUR MESSAGE ON USENET AND HAVE TO
REPLY BY EMAIL: please post my reply on SCJM]
The SEMAG 280 as brought in the TUR Orach Chaim 301 rules that
*bachurim* [adolescents ?] can run and jump. The BACH there rules
that this is only permitted b'diavad; the Magen Avraham Shulchan
Aruch OC 301 rules that this is also permitted l'chatchila.
Josh
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>Plus, what I see as a huge problem in Judaism, is the inability to rank
>laws. Perhaps driving on Shabbat is a minor sin, while driving to
>visit one's parents is perhaps a major mitzvah and thus, it is
>acceptable if the driving is done to do mitzvahs (at least, major
>ones).
>
permitted so taht we can perform a positive commandment. (We are not
discussing something done in order to save a live. Even in that case it is
learned out from the Torah and not an automatic logical response). So for an
orthodox jew to drive to visit parents would definitely be a no no.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
The following are *categories* of work that are forbidden on Shabbat:
1) ploughing (preparing the soil for planting) [digging, furrowing, clearing
stones or weeds, fertilizing, leveling the ground, etc.]
2) sowing (sowing, planting or other action facilitating the growth of plants)
[watering plants, planting seeds, etc.]
3) reaping (uprooting a plant from its place of growth) [harvesting, mowing the
lawn, breaking branches, removing honey from a hive, picking flowers]
4) making sheaves (gathering scattered objects and placing them together)
[gathering fruit which fell from a tree, gathering straw, making a flower
wreath]
5) threshing (breaking up or separating into parts) [threshing grain, removing
peas from their pod, squeezing out juice, milking cows]
6) winnowing (separating an object into different components or removing
the waste material from food by fanning it or blowing on it)
7) selecting (sorting objects into different categories, or separating unwanted
from wanted matter) [sorting out a pile of objects, straining liquids,
removing unwanted matter from food]
8) sifting (separating objects into their different components or separating
waste from food by shaking it in a sieve)
9) grinding (grinding an object into small particles) [grinding grain into
flour, grinding coffee or pepper, filing metal, sanding wood, cutting up
vegetables into tiny pieces]
10) kneading (mixing a solid with a liquid to form a single unit) [making dough,
making cement]
11) baking (changing food or other materials by means of heat) [baking,
cooking, roasting, grilling, frying, melting solid materials like wax or
metals, drying wood]
12) shearing (removing any natural growth from the body of man or animal)
[shearing or plucking feathers, hairs and nails; removing skin]
13) bleaching (any action that cleans or improves the appearance of clothes
or fabrics) [soaking clothes in water, scrubbing clothes, shaking off wet
clothes, ironing, cleaning stains, hanging out wet laundry, squeezing wet
hair]
14) combing raw material (separating a solid or entangled material into
threads) [combing raw wool]
15) dyeing (changing the natural or artificial color of an object or fluid)
[painting, dyeing fabric, dissolving colors in liquid, making chemical
solutions which cause color reactions, developing film, applying makeup
or nail polish]
16) spinning (making threads from raw materials by pulling, stretching,
twisting or rolling) [making thread or rope, twisting threads which became
loose]
17) preparing a loom for weaving (or setting up the warp on a loom)
18) arranging the warp so that the woof threads can be easily woven
19) weaving (weaving the woof through the warf to form material) [knitting,
crocheting, making a metal fence, making straw baskets]
20) separating into threads (separating a woven or braided material into
threads) [separating a cloth by its threads, removing a thread from fabric,
pulling out a thread or unraveling a thread]
21) tying a permanent knot (or a specialty knot e.g. surgical or fishermans)
22) untying a permanent knot
23) sewing (connecting 2 pieces of material together) [sewing, gluing,
stapling]
24) tearing (tearing paper or cloth, or separating something stuck together]
25) trapping (catching animals so that they can easily be caught) [trapping
animals or insects, chasing animals into an enclosure, closing a window to
prevent a bird from escaping, setting up animal traps]
26) slaughtering (shortening the life of a living creature) [killing an
animal or insect, removing fish from water, inducing bleeding or causing
a wound]
27) skinning (skinning and flaying animal hides)
28) tanning (processing leather) [oiling leather, salting meat, pickling
food, processing materials in chemical solutions]
29) scraping (smoothing leather or other materials) [using creams or
ointment, smoothing material with sandpaper]
30) marking lines (marking lines or figures) [using ink, marking with
sharp object]
31) cutting to shape (cutting or tearing a material to a specific shape or
size) [cutting cloth or other material to size, sharpening wood or pencils]
32) writing (writing letters, numbers, lines or forms which have meaning)
pwriting, sketching, drawing, enraving, making a mold in the shape of
a letter, using a rubber stamp, printing; also: doing business, measuring
and weighing, purchasing items]
33) erasing (erasing or tearing something written)
34) building (any action that helps in the construction of a building) [digging
a foundation, pouring cement, setting up a wall, installing doors or windows,
leveling the ground, driving a nail into a wall, drilling a hole, setting
up a tent, erecting a partition, making a roof]
35) demolishing (demolishing a structure) [taking down a tent, removing nails]
36) making a fire (lighting a fire, turning up a flame, making a fire burn
longer)
37) extinguishing a fire (putting out a fire, turning down a flame, shortening
the time a fire burns)
38) MAKEH B'PATISH [the final hammer blow] (the final stroke which completes
a job or production of an object) [sharpening knives, making an electrical
connection, connecting parts of a tool]
39) carrying from one domain to another (transporting an object from a public
to private domain and vice versa by carrying, throwing, pushing, handing
over) [the laws here are quite complicated]
Josh
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
> ********************************************************************
> Rob Weisskirch, MSW |Durch shveigen ken men nit
> rsweis...@ucdavis.edu |shteigen.
> Dept. of Human & Community Development |
> University of California, Davis |You can't get ahead with
> One Shields Avenue |keeping quiet.
> Davis, CA 95616-8523 |------Yiddish proverb
> ********************************************************************
Polar
wrote:
[...]
>>Exercise is permitted as long as one doesn't work up a sweat (Shulchan
>>>Aruch ORACH CHAIM 328:42 based on the gemara in Shabbat 147a).
[...]
How do people manage sexual intercourse, which is enjoined
upon married couples on Shabbat, without working up a sweat?
Lisa Beth
wrote:
>The wording in the post is a bit too acerbic for me.
>
>I recognize the precedence of observing mitzvot in accordance
>with halacha as opposed to just doing whatever one feels is
>expedient; but, it is not always easy for Jews to locate their
>residences near their shuls.
In the Middle Ages, it wasn't always easy to observe the mitzvah of
brit milah. In fact, it was more than "not always easy"; it was often
fatal. And yet, Jews did it. But the desire to live in upscale
neighborhoods and to socialize with the people in the gargantuan
cathedrals that serve for synagogues these days is apparently enough
to get some Jews to violate basic laws of Shabbat.
That's incredibly tragic.
>We are not living in the Jewish
>enclaves of large U.S. cities of the 1940s through 1960s when
>there was a shul on almost every city block. Urban sprawl
>and the location of residences to minimize commuting means
>that riding to shul is often the only way one can get to services
>where there is a minyan. Of course, spending erev Shabbat
>at a friend's house near the shul and walking to services is an
>alternative but it is not always feasible. And, what of those
>people who have awakened to Judaism years after establishing
>their places of residence, are they to be disenfranchised
>because they need to drive to atttend services? I think not.
No. Judaism doesn't exist only in the synagogue. A "Judaism" that
says or implies that it does is a watered down travesty of real
Judaism. "Disenfranchised"? That's just silly. A Jew isn't
disenfranchised if they can't drive to shul on Shabbat. Judaism is
bigger than that. Might as well say that it's okay to go to work on
Shabbat, because some people can't afford not to, and if you don't let
them, you're disenfranchising them.
>For me Judaism is not an "all or nothing" proposition.
Right. A person who doesn't keep all the mitzvot is still a Jew. And
gets credit for what he or she *does* do. The issue here isn't Jews
violating Shabbat. It's the Conservative movement telling them that
it's actually permissible.
Lisa
meirm...@erols.com
agor...@my-deja.com posted:
>
>
>Plus, what I see as a huge problem in Judaism, is the inability to rank
>laws.
Actually prohibitions outrank positive commandments in the cases I can
think of.
> Perhaps driving on Shabbat is a minor sin, while driving to
>visit one's parents is perhaps a major mitzvah
Don't you find that true even in the rest of your life, and for
gentiles as well, that a prohibition that applies some of the time
takes precedence over a good thing that can be done at any time.
I know that in practice if you don't want to spend 25 hours with your
parents or anyone nearby, it means you can't, for example, even eat
dinner with them Friday night. Do they only eat one good meal per
week? :) I know it is not Shabbos but there are still 6 more days.
>and thus, it is
>acceptable if the driving is done to do mitzvahs (at least, major
>ones).
>
>
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me only, please say, so I won't
Yitzchak Moran
>
> In article <3A5A3E84...@me.pls>, Marc Andrews wrote:
> >
> >What about a wheelchair? An electric one would presumably be forbidden, but what
> >about a manual one? Isn't this similar to a bicycle in basic principle, and it
> >could certainly also suffer mechanical breakdown. The user, obviously being unable
> >to walk, would have no other way to get to shul.
>
> Good point. Wheel chairs are used on the sabbath and holidays. However, stop
> bringing up the point of going to shul. If a wheel chair would be prohibited
> then it would not become permitted in order to go to shul.
This is something that's confusing me, so please forgive me. A number of
people have said (or implied) that it is *not* a mitzvah to daven in a minyan
on Shabbat. (Or perhaps if it violates some other halachic item?) Is this
the case? And if so, am I correct in thinking that we *are* commanded to
daven in a minyan, but if that can't be done by violating Shabbat, that's
okay since we're (presumably) davening in minyanim at other times?
On another topic, I seem to remember someone mentioning a "Shabbat-proof"
electric wheelchair in a threat on That Other Jewish Newsgroup last year
or maybe a couple of years ago?
--
Yitzchak Moran | "...for what reason was the School of Hillel entitled
Professional Dad | to have the law determined according to their rulings?
from the Home Office | Because they were kindly and humble, and because they
dou...@earthlink.net | studied their own rulings and those of Shammai..."
Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879
by Polar <sme...@mindspring.com>:
>
> How do people manage sexual intercourse, which is enjoined
> upon married couples on Shabbat, without working up a sweat?
As I read it, the prohibition is not against sweating (when it's
summer here in Iowa, doing nothing is a sweaty activity), but
rather, a prohibition against exercise or other activity that
is not conducted in for the purpose of performing a mitzvah,
that is sufficient to cause sweating as a consequence of the
activity itself.
If the sweat is not a consequence of the activity or if the
activity is in the furtherance of a mitzvah, sweat ceases to
be an issue.
Back to bicycling (drifting off topic being strictly prohibited),
something I learned commuting to work by bike is that, on a hot
summer day, it is sometimes more comfortable to bicycle slowly
than it is to walk or to sit and do nothing! The reason is,
non-strenuous bicycling on level ground produces a bit of wind,
and the cooling effect of this wind more than counters the extra
body heat created by the effort. Bicycling is just about the most
efficient way of moving a person by his or her own power, and this
is one of the best demonstrations of this fact. How does this
bears on the question of bicycling on Shabbat, who knows?
Doug Jones
jo...@cs.uiowa.edu
animzmirot
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:93b963$d1k$2...@news.panix.com...
> animzmirot <animz...@home.com> wrote:
>
> deletions
>
> >> >them they would drift away entirely. Of course that
> > doesn't
> >> >entirely explain the C ruling because plenty of people
> > drive to O
> >> >shuls on shabbat as well, but at O shuls you have to
park
> > around the
> >> >corner and at C shuls you can use the parking lot.
>
> > Perhaps you might want to drive a ways to Newton Centre
on a
> > Shabbat morning and see for yourself if people drive to
O
> > shuls. The answer is extremely clear if you're on Comm
Ave.
>
> > Marjorie
> No one is questioning that there are people who drive to O
shuls on
> Shabbat. (I go to 2 different shuls and I would not be
surprised if the
> maority drive - except for bad weather,. then the walkers
make it and the
> drivers don't) Just going to an O shul and being
affiliated does not
> necesasrily make someone O. The second thing is that all
of those who do
> drive know they are violating the rules. In C those who
drive to shul and
> home with a stop at McDonalds for lunch feel they are
being fully
> observant. That is the difference.
But that's plain silly. You're assuming that _all_ C's eat
at McDonalds, which is hardly the case. In fact, most of the
C people I know don't set foot in the place. Recently when I
was ill I needed a drink of coke desperately (that stomach
virus thing!) and went WAY out of my way to get to a store
when driving thru a McDonalds would have been much more
convenient.
It's wrong to make judgements about any movement or group of
people. You don't know every C in the world, I don't know
every O in the world, and there are plenty of people within
each movement that deviate from the 'norm'. For example, I
used to live in a community with many many South African
immigrants to the US. These folks joined O shuls because it
was what they were used to back in S.A. However they *all*
drove and of the S.A. families I was most friendly with,
they kept Kosher in the home, but not outside, and they were
*not* shomer shabbat. Yet they formed the backbone of
several O communities. Now, I could make Lisa-esque comments
about these people's commitment, etc. But what would be the
point. They were practicing Judaism in the way that was
familiar and comfortable for them. It may have not been *my*
way, or your way, but it worked for them. So does this make
them bad people? I think not.
A while back in this thread Yitzchak Moran made a comment
about how all the Rabbi's in the Bay Area all knew each
other and how the Chabad Rabbi in Palo Alto was well known.
Simcha tore back with his doubts that C families know who
Rabbi Levin is. How wrong he is. We ALL know Rabbi Levin
because he does a fabulous job of outreach within our tiny
community. Unlike many of the posters here, Rabbi Levin not
only does not shun people who don't affiliate O, he welcomes
them to his summer camp programs, his winter camp programs,
the BBQ's and celebrations he has throughout the year. In a
city the size of San Jose there are 7 congregations. It is
the second largest city in CA and we have 7 shuls. Do you
REALLY believe that we can refuse to be involved with each
other and still keep the community alive?
This is a very hard place to be an observant Jew. No doubt
about it. But because our community is so small, we all
stick together. That means that when Yitzchak's wife takes
the Organic Kosher Chicken order twice a year, everyone from
the Chabad to the very Reform will take part in the coop. It
means that when a Jew meets another Jew anywhere, in the
grocery store, in a Museum, even at the Auto Show, which
happens to be the most popular secular event for the frum in
the area for some reason, we all know each other and welcome
each other. And it means that when I run my spring Maccabe
soccer league, kids from Chabad's Torah Academy and Etz
Chiam academy play with the SSDS kids, the O day school
kids, and the 'community' (read secular) day school kids
while parents schmooze all together.
How people observe is less important to how they behave as
community members and as human beings. No offense, but some
of the most strident posters on this newsgroup would be
people I'd cross the street to avoid. They don't welcome
people to Judaism, they discourage active participation.
Baby steps are just as important as running a marathon.
Marjorie
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>This is something that's confusing me, so please forgive me. A number of
>people have said (or implied) that it is *not* a mitzvah to daven in a minyan
>on Shabbat. (Or perhaps if it violates some other halachic item?) Is this
>the case? And if so, am I correct in thinking that we *are* commanded to
>daven in a minyan, but if that can't be done by violating Shabbat, that's
>okay since we're (presumably) davening in minyanim at other times?
We are supposed to daven every day. That is the mitzvah. Davening with a
minyan can be thought of as a plus. It is not a commandment, however, that
would allow one to desecrate the sabbath in order to fulfill.
In other words, if we can daven with a minyan we certainly should. Perhaps
it is because of "b'rov am hadras melech" (anything that can be done in a
group is more (cant think of a proper english word here). Also certain
blessings can only be said in a group of 10. All of these things are
d'rabbanans (rabbinical). The keeping of the sabbath is not rabbinical but
d'oraita (spelled out in the torah). That is why it makes no senses at all
to desecrate the sabbath in order to pray.
>
>On another topic, I seem to remember someone mentioning a "Shabbat-proof"
>electric wheelchair in a threat on That Other Jewish Newsgroup last year
>or maybe a couple of years ago?
>
Someone mentioned it a thread. I have no idea what it is or how it works.
Sheldon Ackerman
>On 7 Jan 2001 04:46:59 GMT, Murray <rhoda-murra...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>brit milah. In fact, it was more than "not always easy"; it was often
>fatal. And yet, Jews did it. But the desire to live in upscale
>neighborhoods and to socialize with the people in the gargantuan
>cathedrals that serve for synagogues these days is apparently enough
To continue on a slight tangent, people will do what is important to them.
When looking to buy a house,
some will look for an area where shopping is convenient, or where
transportation is convenient. Others will look for an area where shuls and
mikvahs are convenient to get to.
meirm...@erols.com
jo...@cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
posted:
>
>
>Back to bicycling (drifting off topic being strictly prohibited),
>something I learned commuting to work by bike is that, on a hot
>summer day, it is sometimes more comfortable to bicycle slowly
>than it is to walk or to sit and do nothing! The reason is,
>non-strenuous bicycling on level ground produces a bit of wind,
>and the cooling effect of this wind more than counters the extra
>body heat created by the effort. Bicycling is just about the most
>efficient way of moving a person by his or her own power, and this
>is one of the best demonstrations of this fact. How does this
>bears on the question of bicycling on Shabbat, who knows?
I was thinking of another marginal? situation. I used to jog in
weather as low as zero fahrenheit. I would still get hot enough that
I had to take my shirt off but I don't think I would sweat. Maybe the
air is dryer so I didn't notice.
Is there a modesty issue? What if no one else is around?
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: I said that the Conservatives let you drive to shul on Shabbat even if
: there's a frum shul right next door.
That is not what you said: what you said was that according to the
Conservative movement, it is "fine and dandy" [sic] to drive on Shabbat.
: That it's only if there's no
: *Conservative* synagogue within walking distance that you can drive.
: Richard disagreed (and is wrong).
I never discussed the issue of whether the teshuvah permits driving to
the nearest synagogue or to the nearest Conservative synagogue. Therefore,
I could not have been disagreeing with your statement above, since to
my knowledge, you had not made it previously.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I have, if you will forgive the expression, known several bastards
with very high IQs."
--J. Bronowski
Harry Weiss
I never said all or even most. I said those who do feel they are being
fully observant. That is the whole issue. In O we know violating Shbbat
is porhibitred and the South African you mentioned also know they are
violating Shabbat, but choose to do so. Among C the impression given is
that it is okay to drive on Shabbat. That is not the official ruling,,
but that is the commonly held perception.
Harry Weiss
> From article <dsrk5t03c0ljoinaf...@4ax.com>,
> by Polar <sme...@mindspring.com>:
>>
>> How do people manage sexual intercourse, which is enjoined
>> upon married couples on Shabbat, without working up a sweat?
> As I read it, the prohibition is not against sweating (when it's
> summer here in Iowa, doing nothing is a sweaty activity), but
> rather, a prohibition against exercise or other activity that
> is not conducted in for the purpose of performing a mitzvah,
> that is sufficient to cause sweating as a consequence of the
> activity itself.
> If the sweat is not a consequence of the activity or if the
> activity is in the furtherance of a mitzvah, sweat ceases to
> be an issue.
You are correct, while it is dry here, when I walk home from shul in the
summer and it is 110 degrees, there is no way not to sweat.
> Back to bicycling (drifting off topic being strictly prohibited),
> something I learned commuting to work by bike is that, on a hot
> summer day, it is sometimes more comfortable to bicycle slowly
> than it is to walk or to sit and do nothing! The reason is,
> non-strenuous bicycling on level ground produces a bit of wind,
> and the cooling effect of this wind more than counters the extra
> body heat created by the effort. Bicycling is just about the most
> efficient way of moving a person by his or her own power, and this
> is one of the best demonstrations of this fact. How does this
> bears on the question of bicycling on Shabbat, who knows?
> Doug Jones
> jo...@cs.uiowa.edu
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Harry Weiss
> The explicit prohibition in the Torah is that one may not light a fire
> on Shabbos. Fine. Is a car lighting a fire? A gasoline engine,
> perhaps (though debatable). An electric engine, no. Taking a electric
> powered public transport is OK, as are the new electric-powered cars.
> Plus, what I see as a huge problem in Judaism, is the inability to rank
> laws. Perhaps driving on Shabbat is a minor sin, while driving to
> visit one's parents is perhaps a major mitzvah and thus, it is
> acceptable if the driving is done to do mitzvahs (at least, major
> ones).
DRiving on shabbat is a capital offense. The penaly is death by stoning.
Jewish law says which laws cans be violated to do another, but one must
follow Jewish law and not what one themself determines to be important.
Eliyahu
<bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote in message news:93dbus$p66$1...@condor.nj.org...
> In article <0Hm66.35054$9C.27...@news02.optonline.net>, Marc Korpus
<st...@optonline.net> writes:
> > I'm glad this conversation about bicycling on Shabbat has gotten into
gear.
> >
> > Getting exercise is a matter of health of course and people have limited
> > time off work in which to engage in it. I'm a little concerned if
Shabbat
> > and yom tov prohibitions are routinely assumed to preclude any form of
> > physical exercise more strenuous than a sedate walk in the park. How
much
> > of this assumption genuinely rests on Jewish law, and how much on
> > preconceptions?
> >
>
>
> [I'm not sure if my first posting made it]
>
> The talmud Shabbat 1131 based on a verse in Isaiah 58:13 rabbinically
> prohibits running (except for a mitzva like going to the synagogue).
>
> Exercise is permitted as long as one doesn't work up a sweat (Shulchan
> Aruch ORACH CHAIM 328:42 based on the gemara in Shabbat 147a).
>
exercise? For example, I can exercise rather vigorously without breaking out
into a sweat, whereas one of my golfing buddies ends up dripping wet just
from a brisk walk.
Abe Kohen
"Polar" <sme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:dsrk5t03c0ljoinaf...@4ax.com...
You mean, you don't know about the sheet with the hole in it?
;-)
Abe
animzmirot
That's just as silly as your first accusation. NOBODY that
eats at McDonalds believes they're being fully observant.
That's close to lunatic ranting. It makes no sense.
That is the whole issue. In O we know violating Shbbat
> is porhibitred and the South African you mentioned also
know they are
> violating Shabbat, but choose to do so. Among C the
impression given is
> that it is okay to drive on Shabbat. That is not the
official ruling,,
> but that is the commonly held perception.
Snort!
According to YOU. Not according to many of my C friends, my
fellow congregants, my Rabbi, my former Rabbi, my former
congregants, and pretty much most of the C people I know.
The thing is, you and the rest of the strident O posters can
make all the outrageous claims you want. They obviously make
you all feel like bigger, better people than the C's you
accuse of being so lax. However, you're doing nothing to
further Klal Yisrael, you're doing nothing to make a point
to the C's who know that you're incorrect, and you're indeed
making accusations that sound silly to the C's all over the
US who are trudging thru snowbanks this time of year to walk
to shul. Go ahead and accuse....it makes no difference to
me. You earn my respect when you show me that you're living
a righteous existance. Making up claims about people, claims
you cannot prove to be true, claims with which you have
nothing to back them up (PERCEPTION is very very hard to
prove, m'dear) doesn't earn my respect. And to tell you the
truth, I don't care much for how you percieve me or anyone
else. Why would I?
Marjorie
Lisa Beth
The vast majority of Conservative Jews would have no qualms about
eating at McDonalds. Except possibly vegetarians and those who find
the burgers there disgusting.
And you know this, Marjorie.
Lisa
Marc Korpus
> >For example, even if bicycling out of doors were problemetical, how about
> >working out on an indoor bike? You will never get a flat tire. Would
there
> >be any objection to putting on running shoes and going out for a jog?
> >Lifting weights at the health club? Have the rabbis ever said that "you
> >must not raise a sweat on the Sabbath"?
Jonathan J. Baker writes:
> If the exercise is for exercise, then no, you can't
> do it, because it's not restful. However, if it's something you
> enjoy doing, then do it. So a brisk walk around the park, if it's
> something you would do on other days for enjoyment, is fine. If
> it's something you only do for exercise, no.
Vigorous exercise is a mixed activity and people do it with a combination of
motives, i.e. for their health, to control weight, to build muscles, for the
pleasure of being out-of-doors and moving their limbs. If you're used to
exercising and you haven't done it you may get an uncomfortable feeling in
your lungs and throat and the only way to get rid of the discomfort is to go
and exercise at your usual level. Whatever you're doing, other than maybe
the grimmest calisthenics, is likely to be enjoyable on some level while you
are doing it and of course you feel better afterwards.
But if Shabbat is a "no sweat" occasion according to the nugget unearthed by
Dr. Backon from the Shulchan Aruch, then presumably so specific a rule
trumps any rationale that could be constructed based on doing an enjoyable
activity. And as far as I am concerned, any exercise that doesn't at least
generate some perspiration is too light to make much difference, unless
carried on for a very long time.
Marc J. Korpus
animzmirot
eat
> >at McDonalds, which is hardly the case. In fact, most of
the
> >C people I know don't set foot in the place.
>
> The vast majority of Conservative Jews would have no
qualms about
> eating at McDonalds. Except possibly vegetarians and
those who find
> the burgers there disgusting.
Really? Show me the studies. Show me those statisics. Show
me some proof other than your opinion, which counts for very
very little in my book. You back up your statements with
absolute empirical proof and I'll be happy to acquiese.
Otherwise, I believe that I know my friends, my community,
my former community, and my fellow traditional conservatives
a LOT better than you do. Because you come across so many of
us Conservatives in your daily life, right? Bwahahaha!
Marjorie
Colin Rosenthal
>I'm glad this conversation about bicycling on Shabbat has gotten into gear.
>
>Getting exercise is a matter of health of course and people have limited
>time off work in which to engage in it. I'm a little concerned if Shabbat
>and yom tov prohibitions are routinely assumed to preclude any form of
>physical exercise more strenuous than a sedate walk in the park. How much
>of this assumption genuinely rests on Jewish law, and how much on
>preconceptions?
I know of an Orthodox Shul Minister who regularly runs from one end
of a city to the other every shabbat. It goes like this ... on Friday,
before shabbat, he travels across town from his home to the shul where
he is employed (part time). There he celebrates Friday night, stays
overnight, and takes shabbat morning service. But the shul doesn't have
enough members to get a shabbat-afternoon minyan so on Saturday afternoon
he runs back across the city to the area where he lives and where he
can daven mincha at a shul near his home.
>Have the rabbis ever said that "you
>must not raise a sweat on the Sabbath"?
That would put an end to my mother's chicken soup ...
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: The vast majority of Conservative Jews would have no qualms about
: eating at McDonalds. Except possibly vegetarians and those who find
: the burgers there disgusting.
The vast majority of Orthodox Jews (as Naomi Rivkis has pointed out)
would have no qualms about saying lashon hara. What's your point?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
maxine in ri
> Right. A person who doesn't keep all the mitzvot is still a Jew. And
> gets credit for what he or she *does* do. The issue here isn't Jews
> violating Shabbat. It's the Conservative movement telling them that
> it's actually permissible.
>
> Lisa
Could you please show me references in Conservative literature
and
rulings that state this? The Conservative movement does not say
that driving is ok on shabbat, or that working is, or eating at McD's.
Conservative Jews make choices based on their understanding of
halacha, their family traditions, and their personal comittment.
At least, that is what I see in the synagogue that I attend.
maxine in ri
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
> : Oy, Maurie you're new here. You don't recognize Lisa and Richard's
> : posting style. They each are looking for the title "Most able to be
> : factual while totally misleading". When they respond to each other
> : the results are all the more unintelligable to the uninitiated.
>
> I have never tried to be misleading. Well, hardly ever. If my posts
> are ever unclear, I apologize, and will gladly attempt to clarify
> them for anyone who doesn't understand.
All you have to do is _explain_ yourself.
> I have posted enough times my philosophy that given the nature of
> the medium, in which there are no non-verbal cues of the types
> found in normal conversation, it behooves all of us to choose our
> words carefully and to make sure that we say what we mean. And I
> am frankly surprised that Moshe would think anything else of me.
Sorry 'bout that. This case is a perfect example of what I mean.
Lisa made a statement about a C ruling, which had two clauses; "fine
and dandy" and "violate Torah law". You retorted "there is no such
ruling". But you didn't specify why you say that. I _assumed_ you
were arguing about the "violate Torah law" clause. Now you tell us
with much verbiage, that is the "fine and dandy" clause with which
you disagree. Fine. But you cuold have said that in the first place,
with much fewer words and not left it ambiguous.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
> : To translate. Lisa's claim, besides the "fine and dandy" was that the
> : C ruling allows violation of "all sorts of _Torah_ (emphasis mine
> : M.S.) laws". Richard retorts "There is no such Conservative ruling"
> : because according to the ruling as explained by Richard, there is no
> : violation of "Torah" law. Of course, I could be mistaken and there's
> : a _different_ esoteric point to allow Richard to make his claim.
>
> I was making no esoteric point. The Artist Formerly Known as Lisa Aaronson
> made a positive claim, namely, that there is a Conservative ruling that says
> that it is "fine and dandy" [sic] to drive on Shabbat. Her use of that term
> implies that she thinks that the responsum says that it is absolutely
> acceptable to drive on Shabbat.
>
> In fact, the responsum (which she has obviously never read, or at least
> not comprehended) says quite the opposite. It says that given the current
> dire circumstances, we are *forced* to allow a *certain subset* of people
> to drive. The responsum explicitly states that it would be preferable if
> permitted to drive would refrain from doing so.
>
> As I have posted more times than I can remember, I object strongly to the
> responsum, and it was the implications of that responsum that led me to
> cease affiliating with the Conservative movement. I happen to believe that
> it is possible to find reasons to object to it on the basis of what it
> actually says, and that lying about its contents does no one any good.
Micha Berger
: We are supposed to daven every day. That is the mitzvah. Davening with a
: minyan can be thought of as a plus. It is not a commandment, however, that
: would allow one to desecrate the sabbath in order to fulfill.
I am under the impression (IOW, I forgot where he said it) but R' Moshe
considers davening with a minyan to be the mitvah. One could also, when
necessary, daven without. The lack of minyan is a minus.
In either case, Shabbos is the greater priority.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> I'm glad this conversation about bicycling on Shabbat has gotten into gear.
You forgot to say "pun intended". :-)
> Getting exercise is a matter of health of course and people have
> limited time off work in which to engage in it.
How about getting off one stop earlier and _walking_ the remainder?
How about eating a few carrot sticks for lunch _while_ working so
the lunch _hour_ can be spent in exercise? There are lots of
opportunities.
> I'm a little concerned if Shabbat and yom tov prohibitions are
> routinely assumed to preclude any form of physical exercise more
> strenuous than a sedate walk in the park. How much of this
> assumption genuinely rests on Jewish law, and how much on
> preconceptions?
>
> For example, even if bicycling out of doors were problemetical, how
> about working out on an indoor bike? You will never get a flat
> tire. Would there be any objection to putting on running shoes and
> going out for a jog? Lifting weights at the health club? Have the
> rabbis ever said that "you must not raise a sweat on the Sabbath"?
As far as I know, the answer to your last question is "yes". Josh,
can you give us sources?
Marc, from what I see, Shabbos and Yom Tov are espescially suited for
intellectual/religious pursuits. Six work days _should_ be enough to
find the time for all the physical activity needed. It _is_ a problem
that we've become office chairs potatoes by day and couch potatoes by
night. But Shabbos should not lose it's spiritual component to make
up for that.
Thanks for writing.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
This reminds me of the question one of my first year med students
once asked: how do we apply a tourniquet to the neck in the case
of bleeding ? I almost jumped out from the 6th floor window :-)
Josh
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>Naomi Gayle Rivkis <nri...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>Somebody wrote:
>
>>:>AFAIK, the reason not to ride a bicycle is simply "it's not
>>:>shabbosdik". The halachah in question isn't that of melachah
>>:>(creative work) but of preserving the spirit of the day.
>>
>>: In what way is it not in the spirit of the day? What is the wording
>>: of the ruling which says that it is not in the spirit of the day?
>>
>>I don't know. Also it's a number of rulings, not just one. The sense I got
>>from osmosis (meaning, ideas floating around the community that I can't
>>remember where I picked them up) was that it was deemed too similar in
>>mood to horseback riding. (The latter is Rabbinically prohibited, lest one
>>tear off a switch while riding.)
>
> Since when is "picking it up by osmosis" halakhic method, or "ideas
> floating around the community" a recognized source? You sound Reform.
Well, if the whole community is Torah-observant, there is much to learn
from them. It's called mimetics or "Al titosh toras Imecha" - do not
abandon your Mother's teachings.
>>Interesting, though, that the one time I appeal to the spirit of the law
>>I get objection on that as well. Shabbos is somewhat unique in that there
>>is a concept of "sh'vus" -- a codified letter-of-the-law saying that one
>>must preserve the restfull spirit of the day. The spirit and letter of the
>>law therefore blur.
>
> If you hold a double standard you can expect to be called on it.
I wouldn't call it a double standard. I would call it what has
developed among a large community that is _dedicated_ to observing
Torah Law.
> I have nothing against the concept that there is an obligation to
> preserve the restful spirit of the day, but in Orthodox terms I would
> expect that restful spirit to be explicitly codified and the thoughts
> and mood that are required spelled out in detail.
Really? And every 20 years or so a whole new book would have to be
printed.
I've said it before, but in this case it's very clear. Your
"questions" are a result of being "on the outside looking in".
Micha Berger
: Well, if the whole community is Torah-observant, there is much to learn
: from them. It's called mimetics or "Al titosh toras Imecha" - do not
: abandon your Mother's teachings.
If the capitalization of "M" in "Mother's" and "I" in "Imecha" is
intentional, I find this translation interesting. Do you take the father
in the first half of the verse "listen, my son, to what your father
relays" to be about *the* Father? If so, the gender switches midverse.
I had understood it to mean not to abandon the Torah one absorbs at
one's mother's knee. Yes, mimetics. Or, as the derashah goes "don't
read 'toras imecha' (your mother's torah), rather 'toras umascha'
(your people's torah)".
Lisa Beth
What does the word "allow" mean to you?
Lisa
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>"maurie fox-warren" <m...@shore.net> writes:
>>> sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote in message
>>>>Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>: We've heard over and over again about the Conservative ruling that
>>>>: it's just fine and dandy to violate all sorts of Torah laws by driving
>>>>: to synagogue on Shabbat. The obvious implication of this utterly
>>>>: anti-halakhic ruling is that it's more important to go to shul than it
>>>>: is to refrain from violating Shabbat.
>>>>
>>>>"objective reality."
>>>
>>> Richard,
>>>
>>> The Israeli Masorti movement has ruled that one may not drive to
>>> shul on Shabat but the American Conservative movement has taken a
>>> different position.
>>
>>Oy, Maurie you're new here. You don't recognize Lisa and Richard's
>>posting style.
>
> just doesn't work.
Can't win 'em all. Does that mean I shouldn't play?
>>They each are looking for the title "Most able to be
>>factual while totally misleading". When they respond to each other
>>the results are all the more unintelligable to the uninitiated.
>
> It was totally understandable. You really should stop attributing
> your failure to comprehend to everyone else.
Well, considering that others have complained about the same thing,
I don't feel _this_ criticism is valid.
>>To translate. Lisa's claim, besides the "fine and dandy" was that the
>>C ruling allows violation of "all sorts of _Torah_ (emphasis mine
>>M.S.) laws". Richard retorts "There is no such Conservative ruling"
>>because according to the ruling as explained by Richard, there is no
>>violation of "Torah" law. Of course, I could be mistaken and there's
>>a _different_ esoteric point to allow Richard to make his claim.
>
> Wrong. You didn't even come close to what the disagreement was about.
> I said that the Conservatives let you drive to shul on Shabbat even if
> there's a frum shul right next door. That it's only if there's no
> *Conservative* synagogue within walking distance that you can drive.
> Richard disagreed (and is wrong).
>
> Your reading comprehension has gotten worse and worse lately, Moshe,
Well, Richard has posted that it was something _defferent_, not "Torah
law" as I assumed and not which "flavor" of shul you're driving to.
SO apparently my claim is accurate, you're both so busy being terse
and "accurate" that nobody else can figure it out.
> and your nasty comments stemming from your miscomprehension have
> gotten worse as well. It's a shame.
_This_ criticsim is accurate, and I'll try to improve.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>
>
>> May I assume from the use of "your tradition" that you are not Jewish?
>
>You may assume that I'm not Orthodox. For some here, that means I'm
>not Jewish. Oh well.
We've been through this one fairly often. I've never heard anyone here
suggest that not being Orthodox equals not being Jewish. I've heard a
lot of them say that not being Orthodox means not practicing the
jewish religion, which I think is almost equally offensive. The sane
ones say that not being Orthodox means practicing the Jewish religion
inaccurately, which is a different thing from either of the two
previous.
-Naomi
Marc Korpus
<st...@optonline.net> writes:
> > I'm glad this conversation about bicycling on Shabbat has gotten into
gear.
> >
Shabbat
> > and yom tov prohibitions are routinely assumed to preclude any form of
> > physical exercise more strenuous than a sedate walk in the park.
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il replies:
> The talmud Shabbat 1131 based on a verse in Isaiah 58:13 rabbinically
> prohibits running (except for a mitzva like going to the synagogue).
I take it that the mitzvah of keeping one's health in good repair isn't
quite enough?
Still, one can exercise without running . . .
>
> Exercise is permitted as long as one doesn't work up a sweat (Shulchan
> Aruch ORACH CHAIM 328:42 based on the gemara in Shabbat 147a).
>
.. . . but not, I think, without sweating. Even a brisk walk will bring on
some perspiration. (Even vigorous typing, apparently -- maybe I should turn
down the thermostat.) We're told that the "conditioning effect" of
cardiovascular exercise doesn't kick in without a certain amount of heat
being produced. So what kind of exercise can possibly be contemplated in
the Shulchan Aruch? Swimming, perhaps, because the swimmer doesn't
apparently sweat, although really he does?