avi@utcsrgv.UUCP (Avi Naiman) (08/08/84)
Mike Turniansky's response to Mark Tischler's letter highlighted
the fact that there are some misconceptions as to when 'melachah' (work)
is allowed on the Sabbath and when it isn't. From my understanding,
based on interpretations made by my rabbis in orthodox 'yeshivahs'
(post-secondary religious institutions), it is completely permissible
to desecrate the Sabbath when the life (or limb) of a Jew is at stake
(or even in danger) -- though not so if only property is concerned,
(I can't recall what the story is with animals). [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 of a
non-Jew is at stake.]
Most of what Mike said is correct, and his suggestions regarding
ways around having to answer the phone on the Sabbath are reasonable and
quite common in the Jewish communities I've lived in. One other way to
contact someone who won't answer his phone on the Sabbath (many people
actually disconnect theirs), is to phone the police and explain the
situation. This will usually convince them to send a squad car around
to the residence of the "unreachable" person in an emergency situation.
One point that both Mike and Harlan Braude made, however, is not
strictly correct. They contend that, even in an emergency situation,
there is no reason they need be contacted, as they would not be of any
medical assistance. It is brought down (the source eludes me now, but
I'll track it down if anyone really bugs me for it), that if a dying
person (A) requests to see someone (B), then B is allowed to desecrate
the Sabbath in order to reach A as fast as possible. The question is
then raised that perhaps A should just be told that B is on the way,
but B should not be contacted (especially if there's no way in hell [:-)]
for B to arrive in time). However, since A might know the 'halacha' (law),
he would know that B would not be contacted, and he would not be fooled.
Therefore, it was decided that in all cases, B should be contacted and
immediately set out towards A.
Gotta go break my fast,
--
Avi Naiman
UUCP: {decvax,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,allegra,utzoo}!utcsrgv!avi
CSNET: avi@torontonaiman@pegasus.UUCP (08/09/84)
> That if a dying person (A) requests to see someone (B), then B is allowed to > desecrate the Sabbath in order to reach A as fast as possible. The question > is then raised that perhaps A should just be told that B is on the way, > but B should not be contacted (especially if there's no way in hell [:-)] > for B to arrive in time). However, since A might know the 'halacha' (law), > he would know that B would not be contacted, and he would not be fooled. [My addition] AND The law states that one MUST respect a dying man's wishes, otherwise you may hasten his death. > Therefore, it was decided that in all cases, B should be contacted and > immediately set out towards A. -- ==> Ephrayim J. Naiman @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6259 Paths: [ihnp4, allegra, ...]!pegasus!naiman
hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (08/09/84)
It seems to me that activating answering machines and timers to turn on lights during the Sabbath is just circumventing the commandements. If I rig some apparatus to fire a gun to kill soeone the next day, I don't think that I could use the argument that I did not actually pull the trigger! Herman Silbiger
naiman@pegasus.UUCP (Ephrayim J. Naiman) (08/09/84)
> It seems to me that activating answering machines and timers to > turn on lights during the Sabbath is just circumventing the > commandements. If I rig some apparatus to fire a gun to kill > someone the next day, I don't think that I could use the argument > that I did not actually pull the trigger! > > Herman Silbiger I seem to recall that in Jewish law there IS an actual difference between someone who kills and someone who causes ("geromoh") someone to be killed, but doesn't actually do it with his/her hand. -- ==> Ephrayim J. Naiman @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6259 Paths: [ihnp4, allegra, ...]!pegasus!naiman
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (08/10/84)
References: >> It seems to me that activating answering machines and timers to >> turn on lights during the Sabbath is just circumventing the >> commandements. If I rig some apparatus to fire a gun to kill >> soeone the next day, I don't think that I could use the argument >> that I did not actually pull the trigger! >> Herman Silbiger This memo shows a confusion of action and intent which it is instructive to unravel. If I activate timers and automatic machines to actfor me on the Sabbath (but absolutely not to be controlled by me during the Sabbath), then I am not WORKING on the Sabbath, nor am I causing the variations in fire (electricity actually) that the machine cause to occur, by my actions on the Sabbath. Thus I am complying with the law. The intentions of the no-work laws are not to make me have a miserable time or to crawl up in a corner, but rather to keep me from actively performing certain kinds of activities. it may seem peculiar that there is a big difference between turning on a light at 8pm so I can read, and having a light go on automatically at 8pm so I can read. However, there is quite a difference, which anyone can easily discover by practicing the Sabbath laws. The difference can positively affect one7s enjoyment of the Sabbath. In a similar vein, one can eat a dessert that looks like ice cream but is made from peanut oil and sugar, immediately after eating meat. The object of the milk/meat separation is literally to separate the eating of milk and meat, not what "feels like" milk and meat.
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (08/10/84)
References: Sorry, previous memo broke in the middle. The rest: >> It seems to me that activating answering machines and timers to >> turn on lights during the Sabbath is just circumventing the >> commandements. If I rig some apparatus to fire a gun to kill >> soeone the next day, I don't think that I could use the argument >> that I did not actually pull the trigger! >> Herman Silbiger Herman Silbiger's quote suggests that one is trying to avoid the responsibility for one's intentions. That is not correct, and I am sure that under Jewish law one could not avoid a charge of murder by rigging an apparatus to fire a gun at a later time. One may intend to have light on the Sabbath; one may not actually work during the Sabbath to achieve it. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison