tischler@ihuxs.UUCP (Mark D. Tischler) (08/02/84)
I beg to differ with you, Susan. Ann Landers hit the nail on the head. You can't live with the rules of the past while whipping into the future. Things change, and it is our duties as human beings (not Jews, Christians, ...) to keep up with the changing times. Kashrut is ancient. Sure, it may be a nice idea for someone to do, but you can't live your life without thinking of what is going on in life around you. The mother's concern about an emergency call is a very valid one. The fact that the son has basically cut himself off from his parents, not to mention the world, is sad. He has some duty to his family members, and I feel he is being selfish. Oh well, to each his own. I just hope my kids never do that to me. I would be very hurt. -- Mark Tischler (312) 355-4254 (home) (312) 979-2626 (work) ihnp4!ihuxs!tischler
hbb@houxt.UUCP (08/02/84)
The Ann Landers article raises questions I have heard before.
Generally, I consider the objections to be overstated.
One example is to the claim that since the members of a observant
Jewish household will avoid answering the telephone on the
Sabbath, they are endangering their safety and the safety of
others.
I find this objection difficult to understand. As far as my own
safety is concerned, I haven't thought of too many instances
where someone outside of my immediate vicinity would have any
better idea of my well-being than I. The closest thing I
could think of would be a next door neighbor attempting to inform
me that my house is on fire. I would guess this would make the
telephone useful if the doors were ablaze (the neighbor couldn't
knock on the door and tell me the problem,) but due to the
nature of this scenerio, the usefulness would be questionable.
In the event that someone would be in a dangerous situation, I
cannot imagine why they would call me. I am not an MD, so that
I could assist a person who is ill. Nor am I a policeman
where I could assist people endangered by crime. Calls to
people in these professions would be most
approprate in dangerous situations. Similarly would be calls
to the Fire department, hospital/ambulance corp. Even calls
to the local power company would be appropriate in case of gas
leaks or felled power lines, etc. One would be hard-pressed to
come up with a reason to call on a computer programmer in case of
emergency (I'm referring to dangers relating to Humans, not
machines.)
With regard to the objection to the kosher laws and their
inapplicability to "modern society," the objection is very much
like those against the observance of any (or all) of the other
Jewish laws. There have always been individuals who try to
observe the laws just as there have been those individuals who do
not. These arguments simply attempt to justify non-observance
with "straw man"-arguments.
It is the people that foster these arguments who have introduced
the concept of time/technology into the issue of Kashrut. Neither
the Bible nor the sages ever associated these issues. The non-
observant individuals decided that it must have been the
motivating factor in issuing the laws, and so could be
eliminated when that reason was eliminated.
How convenient!
--
Harlan B. Braude
{most "backbone" sites}!houxt!hbbmarcum@rhino.UUCP (Alan M. Marcum) (08/03/84)
Hmm, yes, well. At the risk of joining a ludicrous melee, I post
this follow-up (also at the risk of "preaching to the choir" [sic]).
It is amazing how intolerant many people are regarding religion.
The US's early history is full of the "we're being presecuted, so
let's go find religious freedom in the New World" followed by the
settlement's policy of "you are FREE to practice OUR form of
religion in the colony."
The example cited is another instance of this. Practice your
religion, they say, but do it MY way. Practice your religion,
they say, but do it in a way that doesn't inconvenience me or impact
on me at all. Be Jewish, please, and "propogate" the culture,
the religion, but don't be obvious about it. And, above all,
Thou shalt not be more frumm
than thy father and they mother.
Won't it be exciting when Jews accept one another, when people
accept one another. On THAT day...
--
Alan M. Marcum Fortune Systems, Redwood City, California
...!{ihnp4, ucbvax!amd, hpda, sri-unix, harpo}!fortune!rhino!marcumtischler@ihuxs.UUCP (Mark D. Tischler) (08/03/84)
Harlan, I hope you never hurt yourself on Shabbat and can't call an ambulance because your too damn stubborn to use the phone to save your own life. I hope your mother or father never gets badly injured, and you're not reachable because your too brainwashed with religion to answer the telephone on Shabbat. I know I wouldn't want to find out in the newspaper that my parent was hurt. That's pretty unfeeling, but typical of folks that are super-religious, to suggest that you wouldn't want to be notified in case of an emergency just because of some law that says you shouldn't use the telephone on Shabbat. By the way, has it ever occurred to you that phones did not exist in biblical times, and that therefore this law is not an original law. But yet you still observe it! Technology definitely was not an issue in biblical times. That's why that argument was not used then. Now, however, the rapid and accelerated growth of technology affects all of us. It is the super-religious who want to hold back technology and, therefore, hold back the advancement of mankind. It's no "straw-man" argument -- it's quite real. Not seeing that is living with you eyes closed. -- Mark Tischler (312) 355-4254 (home) (312) 979-2626 (work) ihnp4!ihuxs!tischler
essachs@ihuxl.UUCP (Ed Sachs) (08/06/84)
============================================================ I've found the dialog on Ann Landers interesting, but since the Australian came to Chicago and Royko changed his socks, I have also switched to the Tribune and no longer get to read Ann Landers. A copy of the original that the commentary refers to would be appreciated. (Please send via E-mail or paper mail to: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Room IX 1A-474 1200 E. Warrenville Rd. Naperville, IL 60566 I'd suggest posting the full text of the Ann Landers column, but that might violate copyright laws.) -- Ed Sachs AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxl!essachs
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (08/06/84)
Wait a minute...
Doesn't the principle hold that if your "ox is in the ditch"
on the Sabbath you can haul him out ?
I am a Christian ( did I pick this up from Christianity ?)
It would seem if this principle is correct that animal (and
surely human) life takes precedent over the Law then in
emergency situations observant Jews could use the phone,
car, etc.
Please let's hear from some Orthodox thinkers on this.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (08/06/84)
Since it is permissible to answer a knock on the door on the Sabbath, why is it not permissible to answer the telephone. I don't recall a prohibition against this in the bible, which is very explicit on what is and is not permitted.
hbb@houxt.UUCP (08/06/84)
Mark: I cannot imagine how you can criticize my position without even attempting to understand what that position is. Let me analyze your "response" piece by piece. >I hope you never hurt yourself on Shabbat and can't call an ambulance >because your too damn stubborn to use the phone to save your own life. > >I hope your mother or father never gets badly injured, and you're not >reachable because your too brainwashed with religion to answer the telephone >on Shabbat. Thank you, I, too, hope that neither my parents nor myself ever get injured on Sabbath (or any other time, for that matter.) Your response is totally ridiculous. I explicitly stated that calling for an ambulance would be one of several actions permitted on the Sabbath. It is permitted precisely because it is done to save a life. The saving of a life supercedes the Sabbath laws. What your statement does is bolster my claim that the arguments used against observance of the Sabbath laws (and any other laws of Judaism) are nothing more than straw-men! >I know I wouldn't want to find out in the newspaper that my parent was hurt. >That's pretty unfeeling, but typical of folks that are super-religious, to >suggest that you wouldn't want to be notified in case of an emergency >just because of some law that says you shouldn't use the telephone on Shabbat. If someone is injured and I am not a person that can help that person, then calling me is a waste of valuable time that could be better spent calling on experts who could help. An example would be a doctor. By all means, call the doctor. But since I am not a doctor, you shouldn't conatct me. While it is quite true that I am most interested in the welfare of my parents, and that I would want to know right away if something (Chas Veshalome) ever happened to them, I realize that letting me know about it on Shabbat will not improve their chances for recovery, precisley because I haven't the ability to heal them. I would be thankful that they received prompt medical attention before any thought of contacting me was made. As for the snide remark you made about lack of feeling being "typical of folks that are super-religious," I say that misrepresenting other peoples' point of view simply to bolster your own position about which you display a tremendous guilt complex is the epitome of an "unfeeling" characteristic! To subsequently accuse these same people of poor character traits you yourself display, is hipocrasy! It would appear that the "super-religious" do not have any sort of monopoly in those areas. >By the way, has it ever occurred to you that phones did not exist in biblical >times, and that therefore this law is not an original law. But yet you still >observe it! While it is true that phones did not exist in biblical times, this has nothing to do with originality of any of the laws. When new inventions or new discoveries are made, what the sages have always attempted to do was determine what characteristics there were in this new object so that it could be classified and the proper laws be attributed to it. Fire has been around for quite a while and electricity was found to have many of the same qualities. It is true that by going this route we have not formulated a law specifically designed for electricity. However, this is much the same process as modern day secular courts use to pass judgement on cases before them. The most important concept in U.S Jurisprudence may be precedence - basing judgements on previous cases. >Technology definitely was not an issue in biblical times. That's why that >argument was not used then. Now, however, the rapid and accelerated growth >of technology affects all of us. Technology was as much an issue in biblical times as it is today. You seem to have forgotten that tools were used in the contruction of buildings and in the manufacture of cloth and for metalwork in those days. The invention of the plow is attributed to Noah. During the construction of the Mishkan in the desert, the Jewish artisans produced very detailed and beautiful works. This may not be modern technology as we think of it today, but it was modern then. >It is the super-religious who want to hold back technology and, therefore, >hold back the advancement of mankind. Oh, brother. I hardly think that members of that "super-religious" group you speak about would ever have entered a fields like computer science had they really wanted to hold back technology. You will find religious physicists, educators, chemists, pharmacists, engineers, etc if only you will look. >It's no "straw-man" argument -- it's quite real. Wrong. It is nothing more than a straw-man! >Not seeing that is living with you eyes closed. That goes both ways. -- Harlan B. Braude {most "backbone" sites}!houxt!hbb
rib@edsel.UUCP (RI Block) (08/06/84)
On this day before the commemoration of the destruction of the Temple, I am somewhat troubled by the causeless enmity which seems to have surrounded the discussion of the Ann Landers article. I have stayed out of the fray because I thought that I contribute heat rather than light. Nevertheless, the statement: I hope you never hurt yourself on Shabbat and can't call an ambulance because your too damn stubborn to use the phone to save your own life. is so incorrect, that is must be publically rebutted. When human life is at stake, even if the peril is only potential, any and all means at hand may be used on the Sabbath to aid the individual. The list of possible citations of this long established principle is almost without end. For example, the RAMBAM (Maimonedes) points out that when desecration of the Sabbath is indicated for saving life, it should performed leading members of the community and not relegated to minors so that the primary importance of saving life be well publicized. The list of injuries for which normal Sabbath prohibitions may be freely overriden is larger than generally recognized and according to most orthodox authorities include fever, bleeding, unexplained internal pain, objects in eyes, and even splinters in fingers. Of course, the proper response is conditioned by the gravity of the situation, and where there is no immediate urgency, sabbatical prohibitions are overriden to minimum extent needed. But the time following an accident, or sudden sickness is no time to consult the literature on what is permissible, the needs of the one stricken take priority until after such time as one is sure that there is no danger to life. Even in this case (of one who is in no danger 'Holeh sh'ain bo sakanah') there are many leniencies permitted for the comfort of a sick person. Many, if not most, consider the use of the telephone to involve rabbinic rather than biblical prohibitions. It is hard to think of any case where using the telephone as the fastest way to summon aid would not be the preferred way.
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (08/07/84)
Does a doctor who follows the old traditions respond to calls on the Sabbath? sdcrdcf!alan
root@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/07/84)
In fact, one is OBLIGATED to use any and all available technology to aid
them in the event of an emergency.
Dave Dalva
Arpa: did@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4 | randvax | sdcrdcf | trwspp | ucbvax}!ucla-cs!diddave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (08/09/84)
In article <335@houxb.UUCP> hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) writes:
~|
~| Since it is permissible to answer a knock on the door on the Sabbath,
~| why is it not permissible to answer the telephone. I don't recall
~| a prohibition against this in the bible, which is very explicit
~| on what is and is not permitted.
Jewish law is not all set out in "the bible". Jewish law is made up
of the "written law" (the Torah) plus the "oral law", set out in
the Mishnah and the Talmud, and compiled in the Shulchan Aruch.
The Torah prohibits "melachah" on the Sabbath. The Mishnah and
Talmud detail the 39 specific acts of melachah, one of which is
lighting a fire. Rabbinic interpretation of this prohibition in
the context of electricity is that any active use of electricity
(e.g., turning on a light, or making an electrical connection)
constitutes lighting a fire. Using a telephone is an active use
of electricity.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!daveabeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (08/09/84)
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
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (08/12/84)
>I beg to differ with you, Susan. >Ann Landers hit the nail on the head. >You can't live with the rules of the >past while whipping into the future. Either Tischler is saying each generation should reject its intellectual inheritance from the previous generations and start out new, or he is saying the Jews alone should reject their inheritance from previous generations. Since the first possibility is clearly impossible, Tischler must be making the second statement. Since the Jews are being singled out, clearly Tischler is expressing some anti-Jewish bigotry. An unbiased observer -- and I doubt that a Westerner could be an unbiased observer -- would note that in terms of social organization and understanding of legal principles, Jewish thinkers 600 years ago were more sophisticated than modern Western thinkers. An honest observer might suggest Westerners reject the outmoded Western tradition for some Judaizing tradition. >Things change, and it is our duties >as human beings (not Jews, Christians, ...) Another call to attack the Jews. Those disgusting traditional Jews are ignoring their duties as human beings. >to keep up with the changing times. >Kashrut is ancient. Sure, it may >be a nice idea for someone to do, Tischler has an extremely unsophisticated viewpoint. All peoples have some form of Kashrut. Americans avoid eating dog or monkey, but the Chinese see nothing wrong with these foods. Americans will not eat locust but I eat the kasher ones. They taste just fine. Judaism differs from Western traditions only in that kashrut is given the status of a religious ritual. Judaism merely tries to make ordinary everyday acts expressions of sanctity. >but you can't live your life without >thinking of what is going on in life >around you. That is observing kashrut might make you look silly at a business luncheon. Or observing Shabbat might prevent you from putting in overtime. If tradition interferes with your money grubbing chuck the tradition. > The mother's concern >about an emergency call is a very >valid one. Many have already given replies to this moronic point. > The fact that the son >has basically cut himself off from >his parents, not to mention the >world, is sad. A non-sequitur. My family observes kashrut but within my lifetime we have entertained members of the Briganza, Wittelsbach and Hapsburg families. These people value tradition. Some observant friends of mine recently entertained the former ruling family of Tunisia who of course would never even consider eating with Tishler -- he does not observe kashrut. How have we cut ourselves from the world? > He has some duty >to his family members, and I feel >he is being selfish. Oh well, to each >his own. I just hope my kids never >do that to me. I would be very hurt. I can understand. The kids were telling their parents, "You could have given us a spiritually, culturally and intellectually fulfilling life within the Jewish community; instead you chose a materialistic, spiritually-, culturally- and intellectually- empty, money-grubbing Western life-style; your choice sucked!" > Mark Tischler > (312) 355-4254 (home) > (312) 979-2626 (work) > ihnp4!ihuxs!tischler Yaqim Martillo An Equal Opportunity Offender Flames via the net -- I do not like to answer telephones.
rs@houxe.UUCP (R.SLUSKY) (08/13/84)
>In order to remain in harmony with the non-Jews in whose countries we >reside, it has generally been accepted that the same laws apply even >when the life or limb or a non-Jew is at stake. Harmony with non-Jews cannot possibly be the rationale. It is inconceivable that halacha would even ALLOW a Jew to refrain from helping anyone, Jew or non-Jew, whose life or limb were threatened, shabbos notwithstanding. I would also submit that the notion of shabbos "desecration" is not appropriate in this context. Ron Slusky AT&T-IS Holmdel, NJ
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (08/14/84)
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.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davesmk@axiom.UUCP (Steven M. Kramer) (08/26/84)
Sure, a light bulb is akin to lighting a fire, but have you considered
that many fire control systems are run by electricity? Also, human
metabolism creates heat in small amounts ... the only difference between
human heat and fires is that the former is more controlled. Should
humans go into a deep freeze on the Sabbath?
Call me a non-Jew or pseudo-Jew is any of you wish, but I believe that
most tradition exists for its symbolic form, and understanding what the
symbolism teaches us is vastly more important that performing the
symbolic act. I consider myself a Jew even though I don't practice many
of the rites. Because this is my belief, I don't care what others think,
for this is not an election or popularity contest.
I listen with interest at some of the discussion here
because I never learned some of it in my many years in religious school, but
I take exception to the `holier than thou' attitude displayed in this group.
Education is important, but you can be good without being learned.
The race I see in this group to top the others
is certainly not what I consider a trait of a good person, though many of
you consider a trait of a good Jew (I do not).
--steve
--
--steve kramer
{allegra,genrad,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!axiom!smk (UUCP)
linus!axiom!smk@mitre-bedford (MIL)