There's one of these in North London as well. I know a fair number of Jewish people there, some more practicing than others. And this is indeed why they have the Eruv, it's to allow them to do some stuff that would otherwise be forbidden.
Another one of these sidesteps was that you can't turn on the TV on the sabbath, but there's nothing stopping you from visiting your friend who happens to have the Spurs game on.
I'll be a little bemused if I die and it turns out there's an afterlife, and in fact it was all a game of rules that you could play with like that.
The only thing an eruv makes permissible is carrying an item from one domain to another. (I.e. a personal house to the public street to a public synagogue.) It's not so much a hack as a way of making the boundry of the two separate domains part of the same domain. The same way, a row of houses can also be a block or a group of streets can also be a neighborhood...there were laws around moving things from one boundry to another, but all boundries are fictions, so its not really doing anything thats tricking anybody...its not really different than buying your neighbors house and putting a big fence around both properties... I think this is actually why an eruv needs permission from the city or mayor. Its actually a legal boundry in this context...
The point about watching the game...thats not really permissible according to many Rabbis, its just an excuse your friend made because its much worse to take an action that completes an electrical circuit (similar to biblical prohibition of lighting a fire) than to just look at something happening...but there is clear guidance about what you are allowed to even read or look at on Shabbos.
This is just human nature...we all do the best we can with who we are at any given moment...the Eruv though is a very different mechanism.
Another important point is that the eruv was instituted because of the rabbinic prohibition on carrying in a semi-public area.
According to Jewish law there are 4 categories of domains: 1) Public (Large area, heavy traffic), 2) Semi-public (most of what we would consider public), 3) Private, 4) Permitted (a small distinct area in the public domain). Carrying in the semi-public domain is biblically permitted, but rabbinically prohibited due to its similarity to a public domain. An allowance was made to carry in the semi-public domain if a symbolic eruv is put up to distinguish it from a public domain.
>... its much worse to take an action that completes an electrical circuit (similar to biblical prohibition of lighting a fire) than to just look at something happening...but there is clear guidance about what you are allowed to even read or look at on Shabbos.
Knowing very little of the "rules" and on the way they are followed, I have always been intrigued by this thingy here (Halachic switch):
> When you slide the on/off button, you’re moving an isolated piece of plastic. It is purely mechanical, and is not attached to anything electrical (electro-mechanically isolated). This is done at a time when you see a green Status Light, which provides 100% assurance that the relevant components within the switch are inactive. Subsequently, after a random interval, the device will activate and determine the position of the plastic by flashing an internal light pulse. The attached light fixture will be triggered only after the switch overcomes two failure probability processes – one prior to this light pulse and one after it. Halachically, your action is simply the movement of an isolated piece of plastic with no implications of causation.
An Eruv isn’t really a loophole. The rule is that you are allowed to carry indoors, or in a walled city. In ancient times the walls of the city basically denoted the extent of the community. Cities aren’t walled anymore for practical reasons, but the principle that you ought to be able to carry within the community is still valid. Instead of getting rid of it, rabbis determined the smallest possible wall that still counts, and that is constructed in order to allow carrying. It’s purpose isn’t to undermine the spirit of the rule, but allow it to continue even as the world changed.
The TV hack is basically an urban legend. I’ve never met anyone who actually uses it, and it definitely violates several rules.
I'm curious about the city wall classification. If, in ancient times, a small section of the wall fell (analogous to an Eruv wire break), would the area typically contained by the wall no longer be considered a walled city/community? The article writes "When a group of rabbis in the ’80s took a boat around Manhattan to create a map, they realized that most of the wire was gone." and the other article [1] describes the condition of the wire as "intact on every Shabbat except one 2010 snowstorm" and worthy of a Twitter feed to check the weekly status.
I don't imagine that a chipped stone on top of Jerusalem's wall in 600 BC would have made the walled city not walled for the purposes of an Eruv. Manhattan is an island, wouldn't it be enough for the community to declare the shoreline the border of the city? (Or maybe I'm trying to apply logic in a place where it's superseded by authority...)
Not to worry, this is all discussed. Technically, the string makes it a series of doorways which together make up a wall. An actual wall would not have this issue, as having a majority of the wall up would be enough to deem any opening a doorway/gap in the wall.
Incorrect. Study the laws of Eruv, which are quite complex, and you'll understand why. Certain areas (the exact definition of which is quite rigorous) simply cannot be turned into private domains for purposes of the laws of Eruv and the Earth falls into this category. No the boundaries are not to "show God".
Bonkers if you ask me. There are three biblical areas
> ...reshut ha-yahid (a private domain) and reshut ha-rabbim (a public domain). Any other area is considered a makom patur (an exempt area)
Then Rabbis made up a fourth:
> To avoid inadvertent violations of Shabbat, however, the rabbis introduced a fourth type of domain called a karmelit. This category includes some areas that would be considered a reshut ha-yahid on a biblical level and some areas that would be considered a makom patur on a biblical level.
Which ends up with some oddities that seem to conflict with biblical dictate...
> while an open field is a biblical makom patur [an exempt area], on a rabbinic level it is a karmelit [treated like public domain].
Then the whole discourse degenerates into this...
> Rabbi Yosef Teomim, author of an important commentary on the Shulhan Arukh called the Pri Megadim, raised the possibility that the tzurat ha-petah is only effective in enclosing an area according to rabbinic law. According to biblical law, however, the tzurat ha-petah is ineffective. Subsequently, using a tzurat ha-petah to enclose an area that is considered to be a “public domain” on a biblical level would simply be an insufficient means to convert it into a “private domain.” A karmelit, however, is considered a makom patur on a biblical level and is only considered “public” by the rabbis; thus by erecting a rabbinically sanctioned enclosure, one successfully converts it into a “private domain.”[4]
Every input here just leads to more questions, ultimately I think little of it would make actual sense to me even I studied a lifetime's worth of doctrine.
To avoid a rabbit hole conversation I bow out and just chalk this up to humans being humans. Others are obviously free to think whatever they like, I have no problem with that.
> but there's nothing stopping you from visiting your friend who happens to have the Spurs game on
Your friend doesn't have to just happen to have the game on. You can even invite your friend over to your house to watch the game. You just can't be the one to operate the TV, as using electric appliances is considered work.
It's amazing how much extra effort is required to consider yourself resting on Saturday. People will also take the stairs to avoid the work of elevators and walk to temple to avoid the work of driving.
Part of that's a translation problem. "Work" doesn't really express the same concept as melakha, which is more specifically human kinds of work than expenditure of brute force.
Melacha is the 39 base categories of avodah (translated, but not literally work) that went into the construction of the temple. The talmud then expands upon how we learn about and understand these - including their sources and the discussions in Mesechet Shabbat (the Sabbath Tractate).
Over the years Rabbis have clarified and expand these definitions to understand how they relate to the current generation and modern world. This is a long conversation.
This is sort of correct - its not the temple rather the Mishkan (tabernacle)... The commandment of Shabbos is six days you should "Taaseh Melacha" and rest on the seventh day... later by the building of the Tabernacle, it connects mentions shabbat out of place and is interpreted to mean, dont build the mishkan on shabbat...and to interpret work as related to creating a tabernacle...https://www.etzion.org.il/en/mishkan-and-shabbat
Ultimately, the general idea is "we create during the week and on sabbath, separate ourselves from that creative energy and just enjoy our handiwork, just as the creator of the world did... this is why even plucking a blade of grass would be forbidden..anything that creates either through adding or removing things is in the framework of how Shabbat laws are interpreted...
While all rules in Judaism are debated endlessly and have a multitude of opinions... My understanding is that most stringent Halacha followers would agree one SHOULD not watch a spurs game on Shabbos...and there are clearly several rules around separating the day from others that may even make it a prohibition(not that I havent watched my share of sports games on Shabbos.) I just think its worth pointing out that its rare youll find a rabbi that says you Should watch the game.
That's not how it works. The law cannot legislate perfection. There is the substance of the law itself then there is the spirit of the law. For example, highway signs have a speed limit, e.g. "60 MPH". The purpose of the law is safety, but the signs don't say "drive safely". Same applies here, a person can technically not violate any of the rules of the Sabbath and still not be in line with the "spirit" of it. From the standpoint of what you call the "afterlife", there's no difference. This same idea applies to all the laws, as Nachmanides (1194–1270) explains, there is an idea of "someone who is digusting/perverse within the framework of the laws" (hard to translate from the Hebrew) - the idea being that it's possible to not violate any of the laws from a technical standpoint, but still be a terrible person. It's not a game in the way you describe it, it's simply the feature of legal systems, namely that perfection cannot itself be legislated even if it is the purpose of the law.
> I'll be a little bemused if I die and it turns out there's an afterlife, and in fact it was all a game of rules that you could play with like that.
That’s the point. In a society, it’s advantageous for the few if most are busy following the rules. Once a critical mass of people break the rules, it’s chaos. But breaking the rules here and there, under the guise of plausible deniability, allows a small group to benefit greatly.
Story: my father—a non-practicing jew—was staying in a ski lodge with his friend Steve, and orthodox jew. Steve couldn't go skiing on the sabbath, so he had to stay behind in the lodge that day.
Apparently, if someone is technically jewish, you can't tell them to break sabbath rules. So before my father left for the day, Steve kept telling him about all the great stuff playing on TV.
There is a line of string near my house that I always wondered if it was an eruv. So I did some research today and it turns out it is, and that it is fairly recent too!
Depends. Whilst the Talmud allows for the use of natural boundaries (lakes) in an Eruv, buildings cannot be unless they're a courtyard (for example) that is fenced in. This was simplified.
Its worth mentioning that Manhattan, while massively larger than Los Angeles population wise, is dwarfed by the LA Eruvin which extends to cover 100 square miles. AFAIK it is the largest eruv in America.
Both the NYC and LA Eruv have realtime updates for status that are taken as seriously as datacenter uptime. You can call virtually any Schul/temple in the Eruv to know its immediate status from a rabbi.
devout jews dont so much as pick up a house key without knowing the Eruv status, while some not-so-devout will intentionally avoid knowing its status as this isnt technically considered breaking the mitzvos.
> You can call virtually any Schul/temple in the Eruv to know its immediate status from a rabbi.
> ...devout jews dont so much as pick up a house key without knowing the Eruv status
Well, except, the only time you need to know the status of the eruv is on shabbat (the sabbath), and if you are someone who needs to know the status of the eruv on shabbat, you are also not going to use a phone or computer on shabbat, so.
Perhaps you might check the status just before shabbat. But surely you are exagerating at least somewhat. (I personally was aware of eruvim but was not aware there was a way to check it's status based on monitors, and personally have no idea how popular it is to do so. I just know nobody's making a phone call to check eruv status before picking up their keys on a Saturday morning!).
The NYC eruv status web page (http://eruv.nyc/) currently says "Last Checked: 1/2/2020", so I believe you were exagerating somewhat to say "immediate" status as well. It does say "It features an announcement each Friday about the status of the eruv" -- so it sounds like, yup, check it Friday afternoon before the sabbath starts, and that's the only time it's updated too cause nobody has any reason to check it any other time, okeydoke.
> Every Thursday before dawn, a rabbi drives the perimeter, checking to see if wind or a fallen branch has broken the line. There are usually a few breaks, so a construction company is called and the rabbi gets in a cherry picker with fishing line in hand to repair the eruv. That's the part that costs so much.
I'm not religious, but I hate the idea of an Eruv. Who do you think you're fooling? God, apparently. If he or she does exist, do you think they are going to fall for your little string ploy?
>Who do you think you're fooling? God, apparently.
If you believe that the Torah is the literal and infallible word of god, then any apparent loopholes must be intentional - indeed, to believe otherwise would be tantamount to blasphemy. Who are you to try and second-guess God's intentions when his words are right there in black and white?
Personally, I find these creative interpretations of Jewish religious law to be an endless source of fascination. It speaks to a vibrant, conscious engagement with religious practice rather than the mindless observation of old rites. It might seem weird, but there's absolutely nothing careless or half-assed about it. The immense scholarly effort to figure out whether (for instance) an electric shaver is kosher is itself an act of deep religious devotion.
Ex-religious Jew here. This is a bit of a mis-characterization (though an understandable one). For those who believe the Torah is the infallible word of God, with laws meant to apply universally through the ages and maximize human benefit, then two things must be true:
1) everything, even apparent loopholes, must be included intentionally, and
2) these laws must be formulated in a way that's flexible enough to conform to changing realities, while sturdy enough not to devolve into ambiguity.
The case of the Eruv offers an example of exactly that.
You're right, that the original commandment, as stated, is pretty clear. Carrying outside of (or between) private residences on the Sabbath is prohibited.
The Sabbath is meant to be a day of rest, so the restriction on carrying things to and from anywhere outside of your home would all but force families to stay in-doors, with each other.
BUT... if the demands or realities of a different (i.e. less than ideal) time were to change so that such an arrangement placed too onerous a burden on worshipers, then the law has an escape clause.
Through the incredibly meticulous and tedious construction of a sprawling boundary, any space could become technically "private."
The rationalization would be that though this was a loophole, the sheer difficulty of exploiting it would signal that practitioners of the Sabbath (and especially the Rabbinic authorities needed to approve and supervise an Eruv) literally had no other option than to sidestep the commandment as originally intended.
It's worth noting that relatively few Jewish laws have such escape clauses.
The thinking is that it signals only those laws for which ideal circumstances are required to actually observe them. To be clear, the original commandment always holds (because even when you do construct an Eruv, let's say, you still must have the original commandment in mind), but there is a threshold after which observing this stricture in a surrogate manner is deemed acceptable.
The kind of Eruv that we're talking about (with wire, rather than an actual wall) only applies to a karmelit, an area which is neither public nor private by the biblical definition (or how the rabbis read the biblical definition). Carrying in a karmelit was not prohibited by the Torah itself, but was prohibited by the rabbis to prevent people from accidentally violating the biblical prohibition. In this case, they're relaxing a rule that they themselves created.
In fact, some of the controversy around building Eruvin in large cities like Manhattan is that large cities may have certain features that make them a public domain according to the biblical prohibition, thus making an Eruv of this kind impossible.
I'm not religious either, but perhaps it is not about "fooling" God, it is about showing God (or... something) respect. We care enough to do something special, with intention, to honor the sabbath. Perhaps the things we do to treat the sabbath special are in fact what make it special, it is a choice to make it special in those ways; you don't even need to believe in God for that interpretation, although you still can.
Why not just follow the rules then? It's like saying you respect your boss so much you always put in your 8 hours...but you don't do any work, you just punch in, sit idle, then punch out.
Perhaps God is not like a boss. The respect is exactly in spending the energy to do things differently on the sabbath, the point of the sabbath is to do things differently. The complicated rules are, arguably, the point.
It's been long accepted that a sufficient rabbinical consensus can out-lawyer God itself, it's like the SCOTUS mandate to decide what the wording of the constitution really means or the Catholic papal infallibility doctrine - can't really have a law system without that sort of thing, religious or secular.
Both of the above comments unfortunately reflect a deep misunderstanding of Jewish way of life. What is generally thought of as God is not what Jews refer to as God, and with time and study, the difference between the two can be properly understood. Also, there's no fooling going on. If you want to study the laws of Eruvim, here is a good resource: https://www.amazon.com/comprehensive-review-Eruvin-practical...
"In frustration, Rabbi Eliezer finally cries out, "If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it." From Heaven a voice is heard, saying, "Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion?" Rabbi Joshua responds, "It [the Torah] is not in heaven" (Deuteronomy 30:12). He responds in this way because the Torah, which was given by God to mankind at Sinai, specifically instructs those who follow it that they are to look to the received Torah as their source and guide. The Torah says, "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?' No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe" (Deuteronomy 30:12-14).
Rabbi Joshua's response then expresses the view that the work of law is a work of human activity, and that the Torah itself supports this legal theory. The Torah is not a document of mystery which must have its innate meaning revealed by a minority, but it is instead a document from which law must be created through the human activity of debate and consensus. Rabbinic literature was capable of recognizing differing opinions as having a degree of legitimacy (Yer. Ber. 3b), yet the community remains united and the ruling which is ultimately followed comes through proper jurisprudence. As such, Rabbi Eliezer's miraculous appeals represent a differing legal theory and were outside of proper jurisprudence which meant that they would not be followed. Instead the Jewish community followed the ruling of the majority in this issue and in others. The Talmud asks how God responded to this incident. We are told that upon hearing Rabbi Joshua's response, God smiled and stated, "My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.""
There is no fooling going on because God is said to have promised to respect and validate these kinds of hacks, a form of devolved governance to the rabbinical law if you will. And a more conservative approach indeed does not distinguish between the word of G*d and the word of the rabbis but it is far from universal even among believing and practicing Jews.
> It's been long accepted that a sufficient rabbinical consensus can out-lawyer God itself
Maybe, I'm not an expert in Judaism, but this comparison with that description:
> it's like the [...] Catholic papal infallibility doctrine
...shows a deep failure to understand the doctrine of papal infallibility, and makes me suspect the characterization of the Jewish understanding is equally flawed.
> The papal infallibility doctrine retroactively aligns God's will with its interpretation by the Pope
No, it doesn't. Either in theory (where the direction of effect is the reverse described and there is no retroactivity) or in practice (where the theoretical restrictions on the applicability of the doctrine mean that on any issue where there is otherwise any controversy, the doctrine doesn't force a resolution it just expands the debate to include whether any papal statements ever made on the issue met the criteria for infallibility.)
> Compare "It is not in heaven" with ""Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
The latter isn't related to the basis for the doctrine of infallibility (whether papal or ecclesiastical) but it is part of the basis of doctrine around the priestly role in confession.
If I'm getting the names of the specific doctrines wrong - apologies, but the principle goes to way before they were formally defined.
And yes retroactively - "You bind on earth" is present tense, "will be bound in heaven" is future tense - unless this is a translation artifact there is a clear causal ordering specified here.
> And yes retroactively - "You bind on earth" is present tense, "will be bound in heaven" is future tense
Yes, and it refers not to changing what God wanted in the past (which would be retroactive, but isn't what a present tense action having future tense effects would indicate; it's not “whatever you bind on Earth will have been bound in Heaven”, which would plausibly describe a retroactive effect, or alternatively or pre-ordained one) but the future consequences of sin. Again, the quote you point to is the basis for doctrine about absolution of sin in confession, not the ecclesiastical infallibility either in general or in the specific form of papal infallibility, which are not closely related doctrines.
Not quite, at least in denouncing the temple money lenders and similar corrupt practices he would actually be denouncing the Sadducees who were allied with the tribal hereditary priestly establishment, the Pharisees were then the challengers who wanted status to be awarded based on scholarly merit, but the Pharisees survived the destruction of the temple and the Sadducees didn't so from then on the doctrinal (then still considered same religion) conflict with the early christians was between them and it makes sense that this what would be recorded in the early Christian texts.
An eruv is a symbolic boundary that allows observant Jews to carry out a range of ordinary activities otherwise forbidden on the Shabbat. There are eruvin in more than 30 states in the U.S., but Manhattan’s is one of the longest in the world. A nearly invisible wire runs from 126th Street in Harlem, down to Battery Park and back up to 111th along the East River. The line has been in place, in some form or another, for just over a century.
It has also an official website where people can check if the eruv is up or down: http://eruv.nyc/
I am not an orthodox Jew but I do like to investigate the truth of things in religions.
I was always wondering how the Manhattan eruv was a “valid” one by orthodox Judaism since a street like Broadway — or really any street — is a dirshus haRabbim which can hold over 600,000 people at once (and perhaps does once a year, also counting the subway).
An eruv originally was supposed to unite “private” domains into one super-domain. The tradition holds that it was instituted by King Solomon himself, to unite Jews who otherwise would not be able to carry things to their neighbors.
So I checked — and it turns out that the rabbinate which oversees it is actually not orthodox, but reconstructionist or something. It is based on Monsey, which is home to many orthodox Jews, so hearing that the eruv is overseen by Monsey sounds like it’s orthodox.
I don’t know any orthodox Jews who use it. And eruvin are basically used by orthodox Jews.
(Fun fact: it doesn’t go through Moshe Feinstein’s old neighborhood, Chelsea, where I used to live, because he opposed it. Another rabbi who opposed any eruvin — even kosher ones — was Menachem Shneerson of Chabad. So in crown heights there is an “eruv dispute” between the orthodox, who use it when they eg walk strollers with their children on Shabbat, and the ultra-orthodox, who refuse to use it and post signs that it’s not to be used: https://forward.com/news/345405/brooklyn-eruv-feud-spreads-t... ).
I think this is an interesting topic for Hacker News because the people here often investigate rules and reasons for them, and this whole topic — even the Talmud eruv rules themselves — is about rules and hacking in a way.
In my orthodox circles, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein was considered to be THE preeminent expert on Jewish law in America and the final voice on tough decisions...and while there are many opinions out there, I cant imagine many orthodox observant rabbi accepting an eruv that he rejected.
I do not however know the specifics in this case...
Jewish law is an amazing rabbi(t) hole that you can go as deeply down as you wish. Look at the Shabbat laws about pickling, and what is and is not forbidden under them. It's such a fascinating study that you could dig deeper and deeper into it for a lifetime and ignore the question of what, if anything, you believe about the God at its root. Between this feature and the obstacles it places before any closeness with non-observant people, it displays the rabbis' brilliance and foresight.
The whole concept is kind of strange. If there's a god, and they care about their rules, an eruv is cheating your god. You were supposed to stay home on the holy day, but someone found a cheat code. If there isn't a god, or they don't care about this stuff, it's pointless.
This is religious checkboxing. You check off all the boxes, and you're good. Islam is very much like that. Ultra-orthodox Judaism is close. Catholicism is more about intent, leading to a system based on being made to feel guilty.
My big takeaway from this is that religions can be quite bizarre. You have this omnipotent god with all these crazy rules that are required but will be totally ok if you find a loophole... maybe it's just people that are strange?
basically Rabbis as early as 1700 years ago are on record as implying: "off-the-record, God is an entirely fictional entity, we get it, we really do, but it's a useful fictional entity to ground the foundations of morals, law and society (and our own status as its meritocratic authority) in, and in order for it to work we must treat it as real - no breaking kayfabe on this even to ourselves and even if this means adhering to the weirder laws attributed to this God from ancient times, at least until we figure a credible way to interpret them away"
By "weird" here I actually meant those deemed socially or economically harmful or untenable, such as slavery, mandatory periodic absolution of debts or polygamy - laws that are just weird but without direct adverse impact are being deliberately kept on as means of reenforcing in-group cohesion through ritual - aka "tradition".
I am interested in this topic, can you give me more of a cite or direction for the Rabbis ~1700 years ago implying God as fictional entity?
I'm not doubting it, the contrary, it seems quite plausible to me and exciting enough that I'd like the source! Rather than "some guy on HN said that some rabbis said something like" heh. And for more study.
> "...are on record as implying" [citation needed].
Citation brought bellow in this thread, whether or not it implies what I believe it implies is probably not an argument to be had here.
> You obviously have no idea how much the Rabbis (or even the layman Orthodox) believe this stuff.
You obviously have no idea how different the notion of G-d as taught by some Rabbis is from the one that is presented to the layman Orthodox. For that matter the way that the Pope thinks of G-d today is not the same that the layman Christian does. And I don't believe that all of them believe in G-d allegorically but I think the foundational ones mentioned in the Talmud did, the Rambam (Maimonides) too probably.
> It makes no sense that the people who gave up their lives rather than give in on minutiae didn't believe in G-d.
It makes the same amount of sense for a literal belief as it does for an allegorical one, the 'minutiae' is a symbol for the underlying principle of self-determination.
> Without sources, your claim should be dismissed as projection or wishful thinking.
Do you have anywhere I can read more about this? Specifically the acknowledgement of God as nothing more than a convenient organizing principle for a society?
The "Oven of Achnai" story that is mentioned elsewhere here in the thread.
1700 years ago is roughly the canonization of the Mishnah, but since the story is presented as a legend in the Talmud it would probably be more accurately attributed to the authors of the Talmud some centuries later.
Some appliances have a "Sabbath" feature to get around restrictions of what Jewish law allows on the Sabbath. For instance, instead of turning on an oven, you put it into Sabbath mode. Then, when you press BAKE and enter the temperature, it doesn't display the temperature or give any response. After a random delay of up to a minute, the oven turns on. Since you didn't turn the oven on directly, it's okay to use it.
This and the eruv all comes across to me as blatant cheating for convenience.
Pressing Bake turns the oven on after a random delay, if you didn't press Bake the oven wouldn't turn on at all. Ergo you turned the oven on, no matter how much you lawyer speak your way around it.
Just reinforces how ludicrous the meaningless rules are, that surround all religions.
To be fair, it takes 7.5 years to study the entirety of the Talmud doing one two sided page a day for about an hour...and this barely scratches the surface... to have an opinion of religion without putting in the effort is equally as ludicrous and meaningless.
Just as I don't need to study homeopathy or alchemy for a decade to have an informed opinion of it, I've had more than enough education on and experience of religion to take a view. Most of it appears to be holdover from ancient and medieval periods when people of a powerful group set the rules. Which is not discounting faith itself.
Which is by the by to the point -- if the rules are there, the amount of effort spent to creatively discount them feels like nothing other than blatant cheating. A sleight of hand.
I can appreciate your perspective but I strongly disagree with your reasoning. It comes off as shallow and founded with preconceived notions and biases. Not to say i dont have my own biases and perspectives...but it would be easier to take you seriously if you simply said, I havent studied it and dont feel a need to focus my energy there. You are free to use shortcuts and heuristics in all your decision making, we all do...but its a mistake to have a strong opinion and call something meaningless or blatant cheating without even having a minute understanding of how jurisprudence of Jewish law is established.
Well without going into why and how I arrived at those views, or any religious heritage I may have had... That's far too deep an exploration for HN, and not likely to be productive.
Note also my response to your second comment to my original -- OP said nothing of it needing to be used before the sabbath. In terms of the eruv, what may be a gentle convenience or exception for a few neighbouring houses, or relations, seems to really stretch when it encompasses tens of thousands+ in multiple city regions. Though I note from other comments regarding Feinsten, if accurate, that some noted Jewish scholars appear to have thought the concept stretched the point too.
Fair enough about how you arrived at your views. For what its worth, my views are not as rigid as these comments suggest. They are nuanced and ever evolving... I suspect Eruv is a complex topic with more reasons than just "convenience."
I am not an eruv or even a Jewish law expert, but I can assure you though that Rabbi Moshe Feinsteins positions were widely accepted in the Orthodox Community and his opinions are not only well documented and sourced, they are studied today much like court precedents are set. There are obviously differing view points, but in order to disagree with him and be listened to, one would need to extensively show their math and support their dissenting opinion with reliable sources and case history...
In general, the rule of thumb around Jewish law atleast for Orthodox Jews is, "ask your local orthodox rabbi." And interestingly enough, when interviewing for synagogue and pulpit positions, one of the common questions asked of Rabbi Applicants is "who do you ask your religious and halachik questions to?" Central to the faith is collaboration and discussion at the highest levels and if you arent stumped constantly and discussing with mentors and peers, you by default disqualify your credentials to most Ultra Orthodx Jews.
Fair point, and I suspect I would find why Feinstein seems to have objected to (this|all) eruv as interesting as the root article, until discussion descends to minutiae anyway. Like most atlasobscura the article barely scratches the surface of what underlies.
Faith is a personal construct to help people cope with the vast desolation of life in the universe. Nabokov's "the cradle rocks above an abyss" and all that.
Religion is an exploit of faith to allow power to beget more power, just like any other "isms" like capitalism, fascism, socialism, etc etc.
In theory, I can also argue that your view above is also a personal construct to help you cope with existence...
I wont pretend to understand consciousness or the human experience...but I like to be pragmatic, and from a pragmatic perspective, I dont see the utility of your belief about religion and faith and power structures...its an almost helpleas viewpoint that rejects everything as imaginary and malleable...and I dont see the value in that in my own beliefs and philosophy.
You would be violating Sabbath law if you press any buttons on the oven especially Bake, even with a timer...unless you set the timer before sabbath starts.
Sabbath mode just turns off automated features when you open or close the oven or fridge door.
In fairness, that does put a rather different complexion on it, as OP didn't mention it needing to be done the preceding day. "After a random delay of up to a minute, the oven turns on." As described it merely gets you a few random seconds pause after pushing the button and setting temp, thus screams of "cheat mode", which seems at odds with your description. Setting a timer to come on tomorrow at roughly 3pm doesn't feel like it's quite so blatantly breaking the spirit of a rule for the day, as press then maybe you wait 1s, maybe 59s. Whether a next day timer is also bending the rule is a much finer judgement...
The OP is mistaken (in my view) about Sabbath mode and its function. The common scenarios are a fridge or oven light that turns on when you open the door. In those cases, opening the door would be no different than flipping the switch to complete a circuit that turns on a light. So, sabbath mode disables that feature and allows you to open the door without turning on a light. Unscrewing the lightbulb or using tape to hold down the switch on the doorframe is the other way to do this.
Setting a timer during sabbath, for another time on sabbath would be the same thing as just turning it on directly.
As difficult as it may seem to many people, the "hacks" are grounded in sound but nuanced reasoning...the cases that make no sense logically are typically mistaken application...the talmud is literally rabbis disproving these ideas based on logic all the time.
The OP is actually correct on function and its name "Sabbath Mode".
The name is a misnomer because the baking function can only be used on Jewish holidays (Passover, Sukkot) when baking/cooking is permitted (okhel nefesh) whereas on Sabbath cooking is forbidden.
Not really. Some debates are based on different ways to interpret modern activities with ancient frameworks...but it still has to follow rational and defensible reasoning or sources... you may find a rabbi who says its ok to push a button on an electical oven on sabbath but you wont find one wh says you cannot do that, but you can set a timer on sabbath as long as it doesn't show on the display...
So, that is not how sabbath mode I am aware of works. I think in this case most rabbis would agree with you; I've never heard of a sabbath mode that turns it on after a "random" delay. I think the GP was mistaken.
Rather, sabbath mode is things like... a sabbath mode elevator just goes up and down all day stopping at every floor, so nobody needs to press any call or floor buttons. A sabbath mode oven, what it actually does, it just stay on all day (disabling features that will turn it off if unattended for a few hours), so you can just leave it on at a relatively low temperature all day and put things in and out of it, without starting a fire yourself. (It is starting the fire that is forbidden not making use of it). (In some cases a timer you set in advance before the sabbath is okay though, so perhaps a sabbath mode oven could have a timer you set Friday afternoon telling it to turn on and/or off at some point in the future).
HOWEVER. In general. I think there is a larger point. As someone who does not particularly believe in God, but still has some respect for following disciplines like this: You say the rules are "meaningless" -- but I would say the rules are meaningful only because of the meaning WE give them, the effect they have on us, the meaning we find in them.
If you don't believe in God, that's the only kind of meaning there is, anyway, right? Or you believe everything is meaningless in a kind of nihilism, which is something some people do, but I don't believe it's what most of us atheists do or is the only option.
So the rules of shabbat can be "meaningful" because of the meaning we find in them, because of the _experience_ of following them, which may be an experience that we find meaningful, especially when done with a community doing it consistently. Shabbat is a good example, because I find it to be so, having some experience with observing it in a community; it is a pleasurable and personally meaningful experience with no need to believe in God to make it so. So whether a modification of a 'strict' rule would make sense would depend as much on the effects it has on the practice as anything else.
I don't think religious Jews usually look at it quite this way (although not as different as you may think either); but the Amish, for instance, I think are closer to this. It's not exactly that God said don't use cars so you go to hell if you use a car; it's what effect do cars have on our lives and communities, and do we want those effects, and it might be okay to use a car sometimes in ways that minimize those effects for a greater good (say, an ambulance, perhaps).
Meaningless in the sense (I was probably far too throwaway and should have added context or explanation) that all religions (and most of our institutions) have layers of human added baggage, rules for rule's sake, and things that are done because that's how they are done. Things that might have made some sense when instituted, or in the context of first century Middle East, or a Medieval religious-focused society but look increasingly anachronistic in a modern, developed world. Clearly they couldn't predict the swathe of inventions and human change any more than the US founders could predict the later interpretations and re-interpretations of their relatively simple words.
As they become no longer of their time, it becomes the rule that is significant and the heritage, and becomes the heritage rather than the reason it might have been instituted way back when. Yet just about every society develops habits and rituals. Occasionally they turn out to be counter-productive to the adherents in a modern world. Now you certainly raise a good point about the experience of following -- the ritual itself can take on importance, and the community benefits are well known. Decline of community appears to be implicated in no end of modern problems, and whether secular or religious, anything that preserves it is to be lauded.
I'm surprised at the discussion spun up from the oven feature -- seems like some manufacturers may interpret the feature differently to others. Which is correct, and which right for Judaism, I'm unqualified to say. A sabbath mode elevator is, to my mind, a much more obvious and clean workaround that seems to preserve the spirit of the underlying idea.
As an atheist with Jewish background who is thinking more about Jewish traditions these days, some thoughts are: The act of figuring out as a community the details of the rules (or 'exceptions' of they seem so) in the face of changing social conditions can itself be meaningful. It can produce meaning related to bringing people into a community of discussion and debate in which decisions are made, or of authoritarian following the orders of a designated leader who decides how you are to interpret the rules, or some combination thereof.
It's all full of meaning, very meaning-producing. It may be intentional or unintentional, the kind of meaning we'd want or not want. Once you are an atheist -- or otherwise don't believe that there is a God who speaks to us in human language giving commands -- it actually frees you (singular or plural) up to alter the practices to produce the meaning you want.
Thought provoking. To paraphrase to ensure I understand correctly, the meaning is the significance of the rule being another result of debate or decree, either of which prod the community to face in the same direction. Whether or not it appears to make sense is somewhat secondary to preserving and strengthening the coherence of the community (c.f. Papal decree and infallibility)?
As an atheist of Protestant heritage I've wondered on the secret sauce of religion that brings the obviously stronger sense of community, as it appears to run deeper than faith, and whether there are ways to achieve that in a secular context. Perhaps particularly difficult in an era when individual choice and consumerism is promoted as paramount. :)
I mean, that's one way I've been thinking about it, yeah... whether how many religiously observant Jews would think about it that way or not, I don't know. :)
But Jewish practice generally/traditionally is really big on "community" as a focus and priority, and religiously observant Jews would agree that's so, in general, I think. They would of course probably say that the reason they do things the way they do, though, is because God said so, the end.
But as outside "sociologists" or "anthropologists" we can have our own interpretations, although perhaps it's rude.
But then, for some interesting additional anthropology, I know increasing numbers of atheist/agnostic Jews, not from Orthodox communities, who I think have attitudes toward Jewish practice along the lines we are talking about...
Sabbath mode for the GE JK915 oven works as I described, starting the oven after a random delay. I tried it right now and it started after a delay of about 42 seconds. See page 8 of the manual for details: https://products.geappliances.com/MarketingObjectRetrieval/D...
OK then. I'd imagine some rabbis are okay with that and others aren't. I think that is somewhat unusual.
You can read about typical sabbath mode's on ovens, as well as other appliances, on wikipedia, which also has some info about how much consensus there is about the legality of various approaches.
For ovens, it does indeed say "With some Shabbat mode ovens that are controlled using a keypad to set the temperature, there is a random delay triggered after a button is pressed before the temperature change takes place", but after going over other more common "sabbath modes" on ovens.
This is incorrect. The Sabbath mode allows the oven to stay on for longer than it normally would, so the oven can be left on the entire Sabbath or holiday with food kept warm inside, as lighting a fire is prohibited, and cooking is prohibited on Sabbath (but not on holidays). In some senses it is a misnomer - it should really be called holiday mode, because that is when cooking is permitted but lighting a fire (without a preexisting flame) is not.
I suppose there may be some rabbi who permitted this, but I would love to hear the reasoning. This is definitely NOT what Sabbath mode usually is.
Edit: here is the rabbinic authority that worked with GE to develop the Sabbath mode. They explicitly state that adjusting temperature on the Sabbath is not allowed. Again, I don't know why that feature exists as it does not provide any benefit from a Jewish perspective.
https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/kosher-appliances/a...
Wrong. I have an oven like the one mentioned. The manual (which I have read) specifically mentions sabbath mode will delay for a random interval without user feedback before starting the oven.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding, and sabbath mode will turn the heating element on and off without regard for user input - i.e. opening and closing the door. That the manual is not clear is not a surprise, nor is it that someone completely unfamiliar with the Jewish Sabbath laws would misunderstand them.
Thats not what sabbath mode does. It allows Jews to open and close the door without turning on a light or a fan. You cant change the temperature or press bake or any buttons on it...it simply doesnt active automated features that typically activate.
If you're living in Denver, next time you're in the DTC on Temple Drive (Union Ave) look up and you'll see the fishing line running over the road between two light poles. This line forms one of four eruvin in Denver. http://denvereruv.com/denver-eruv-map
Plenty of cars do have religious symbols on or in them, e.g. crosses dangling from rearview mirrors, and that's more noticeable to a pedestrian than the eruv.
It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Except it's legal to park your car on public streets, as long as you follow the parking laws and limitations that are displayed. On the other hand, you can't throw whatever objects you want on public structures without a permit. They're not the same thing.
How is this not a display of religious symbols on public property? I assume because the city government doesn't maintain it and it doesn't impede city works?
Yes, it took me a while to figure out why something that doesn’t follow reason survived and thrives. The competitive advantage that religion seems to provide is that it enables a mechanism to create a tribe and tribal rituals. People need an excuse to identify with one another, and it provides a nice way to discern “us” from “them”, enabling survival in tougher times.
Religion has to be independent of reason because it exists to promulgate the continued power of the people who run it. If it was based on reason, then those authorities' authority would be subject to debate. "Don't eat carbs they're bad for you"... "well the science says otherwise." So religion generally sticks to the unfalsifiable domains. In the time of the Ancient Greeks the origin of electricity was unfalsifiable so lightning came from Zeus, winter came from Persephone, etc. As science expanded the domain of reason, religion retreated to the core unfalsifiables of meaning of life, origin of the universe, existence of the afterlife, etc.
> It sounds like you're trying to apply reason to religion, which is just never going to work.
I don't think you've ever met Judaism, every single thing in it is carefully reasoned over. The [unprovable] "axioms" if you will, might not be ones you would pick, but given those axioms everything else flows logically.
Anyway,
A wall encloses a space. A wall can have doorways obviously, and still enclose a space.
What if you made the entire wall out of doorways?
And that's what an eruv is, it's a series of doorways all right next to each other. There are certain rules on how you construct an eruv, otherwise it's not considered a doorway, but rather an opening.
Pretty close but you aren't being nit picky enough.
What makes a button hole? It's not just the space, but also the frame of stitching that surrounds it.
So to use your analogy the suit would need to be made of many frames like that connected together.
What else makes a button hole? Well they are usually in a nice straight line, so you suit would have to be the same way, you could not have a messy pattern of random placement.
Keep going, what are the other essential elements of a button hole? Etc..
Take it to the full extreme, every element debated and defined and you would start to approach the way the thought process works.
(An eruv has a ton of very strict restrictions on its construction, otherwise it doesn't count. Superficially it seems simple, just a string, but actually getting all the details right takes a lot of effort.)
Its not a religious symbol its a legal boundry that has a religious benefit. Most city eruvs use existing infrastructure like phone wires, walls, fences through backyards even gulleys if they are steep enough.
The legal proclamation from the city that is required for it to be valid. What makes anything a legal boundary? What makes a neighborhood zoned as residential? Is it the residents and how they use the structures they call homes or is it the legal process and documentation that designates it?
> How is this not a display of religious symbols on public property?
Displays of religious (or anti-religiois) symbols on public property are not generally illegal in the US; Government favoritism on the basis of religion on permitting such display, OTOH, is a First Amendment violation.
With all due respect. No one is asking to go into your house. They just want to push a stroller on the publicly funded sidewalk in front of it the same way you want to drive your car on the publicly funded street in front of theirs.
(Edit: I see you removed the hateful part of your post, Ill keep this here though.)
The point about a mosque sounds like either you live near clueless Jerks or you believed a made up rumor. I dont know any religous Jews that care about whats inside or outside the Eruv except their homes and perhaps local hospitals or nursing homes to visit ill and elderly when they cant drive.
Just to set the record straight, there was no hateful part of my post.
I was referring to the uproar from the residents near where I live (which is part of an eruv) about a mosque being set up there, as reported by major press outlets:
The point I was going to make was that they appear to care deeply about what is inside the eruv (e.g. a mosque). You say it is just about pushing a stroller around and they don't care about what is inside my house etc, but we can see that if someone tries to set up a mosque inside their self-declared jewish area (i.e. eruv) and it is literally national news due to the level of anger and racism.
From your very first link, "but a minority of comments have been Islamophobic, leading a local rabbi to denounce “threatening and misleading” language that echoed historic antisemitism."
So basically, you said Jews care about whats inside the Eruv because a small minority (of jerks) who are outright denounced by rabbis, and the majority of Jews reject... must mean Jews are islamophobic and want to keep a mosque outside of an eruv...
My perception is that your making assumptions about many people and communities based on a few news stories about a few bad actors. There are layers of potential bias in these stories and even if you investigate further, it clearly doesnt support your contention.
Edit: I changed language from calling this hateful since I was wrong to make broad assumptions. The author is likely not hateful but rather making assumptions that I disagree with...much like I was. Hopefully we can both walk away from this exchange slightly more open minded.
Please stop talking like this - first you are accusing me of using hateful language, now accusing me of "hating" on things and not wanting jewish people to live near me etc. Please keep your assumptions about who I am and what I think to yourself.
I can't reply to your initial post, since it's flagged dead, but from a Jewish Halacha (legal) point of view, your home is not included in the Eruv anyway.
Only the public properties are included.
For example a common walkway in a condo needs an eruv (since it's owned by all the condo members together it's considered public [joint might be a better word] property, not private). This common walkway is NOT included in a city eruv, only city owned property is. (And the owners of the condo will need to make their own eruv.)
You are right. I am sorry for using such forceful language. I do not know you or your motives and will edit my posts. My only request is that you take a minute as well to consider why I perceived your comments the way I did, and you ask yourself some tough questions about your own assumptions.
I cant edit my post above this...but I want to correct that the person I was responding to did not delete a hateful comment. Just an assumed accusation I assumed was hateful but was in fact just an assumption based on a premise I do not agree with and feel was unfair. Not hateful but unfair in my own opinion!
Another one of these sidesteps was that you can't turn on the TV on the sabbath, but there's nothing stopping you from visiting your friend who happens to have the Spurs game on.
I'll be a little bemused if I die and it turns out there's an afterlife, and in fact it was all a game of rules that you could play with like that.