dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (09/02/84)
Joe Abeles (mhuxm!abeles) says: > But I reserve the right > not to answer any overzealous epikorsim-bangers who (like David Sherman did > recently) use any possible opportunity to proclaim to the net.world their > eternal and total holierness-than-the-other-guy! Joe's recent article on "Who is a Jew" is the type of article I have no objection to. I disagree with his conclusions, but he discusses the issues rationally, and recognizes the arguments on both sides. The article to which I replied, however, was quite different. Here is Joe's original article and my reply: > In article <179@mhuxm.UUCP> abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) writes: > ~| > ~| Of course, the rabbis of the 19th century who concluded that > ~| electricity is a form of fire were not well-informed scientists, > ~| nor did they heed any advice from scientist of the day. > ~| Electricity is obviously not fire. > ~| > ~| --J. Abeles > > Of course, J. Abeles is not a well-informed observant Jew, nor > does he heed any advice from Orthodox rabbis of today. > > Why is electricity "obviously" not fire? Why does J. Abeles > presume to know what characteristics of electricity and fire > are relevant to their similarity or difference from a halachic > point of view? > > We believe that the Torah was given for all ages, and is > relevant in our technological age. From the point of view > of its effect on Shabbos observance, treating electricity > as fire is entirely appropriate. Turning on a light switch > is in many ways equivalent to lighting a candle. And I find > that not being able to use electrical devices and appliances > adds substantially to the "menuchah" [rest] of Shabbos. Joe is welcome to present an argument based on halachah to the effect that electricity has properties which are different from fire in such a way that the active use of electricity on Shabbos should not be considered "lighting a fire" or "extinguishing a fire". That is not what he did, however. With one snide comment, he insulted the entire community, past and present, of Orthodox rabbis. Terms such as "of course" and "obviously" are hardly the basis for a rational argument. I was not "epikorsim-banging". I was defending a large, very learned group of people who are not here to defend themselves. If you look at Joe's original article and my reply, you will see that I only gave him back what he had given the rabbis, in parallel language. Was he "frummie-banging", perhaps? And perhaps Joe can now tell me where in my article I "proclaim[ed] to the net.world [my] eternal and total holierness-than-the-other-guy"? Dave Sherman Toronto -- { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!dave