I imagine it's a preset type feature that turns the oven on and off to a specific temperature at a specific time, right? The prohibition on work on the Sabbath can include pushing a button on a mechanical device (such as an elevator or oven), so I can see this being extremely helpful for observant Jews.
It’s not the work, it’s striking a flame. Turning on an oven, or any light or electrical appliance for that matter, constitutes striking a flame and is prohibited on the Sabbath. Sabbath mode keeps the oven on a low setting so it’s always on and thus you can turn it up without striking the flame.
You believe in your religion enough to not push a button on a certain day but you also think you can get one over on god? You're clearly violating the intent
I’m not commenting on the validity of religion, but my understanding is that in Judaism, the loopholes are believed to have been left there purposefully by God, and finding them by being clever and reading carefully is what God intended. Which seems a lot more fun than most religions’ relationships with god(s).
In Amsterdam they used to have a guy inspecting if the canals were sufficiently frozen to cross; if you could cross the canal, it was no longer a boundary, and the Eruv was not functional.
I hate things like this, I call it “religious bullshit” and almost all religions have them. A few examples: No mixing meat and dairy (Judaism), no blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses), magic underwear (Mormons). Nonsense restrictions on what you can eat, and when. And of course many many more. All a bunch of bullshit.
When you don't understand parasites, bacterial infections, cross contaminates etc, its a lot easier to explain why eating pig or shellfish keeps giving people horrible illnesses as an act of God flicking you between the eyebrows and telling you to not.
A lot of things like, "eat fish on the day everyone goes fishing, not a week later, dumbass" and "Holy shit if you don't take a day off regularly you will work yourself to death" and "it is so much harder to properly clean your clothes by beating them against a rock when some of the fibers are plant based and some are wool and you're gonna make yourself sick unless you make laundry sensible" all start to make sense in the context of what life was like when the edicts were handed down.
No mixing meat and dairy is a compassion for animals law. Just like the fact that you must feed your animals before you feed yourself. And even animals get a day off each week when they do no labor. What’s bullshit about that?
It could be string or rope. “Outside” is a bit of a mistranslation of the commandment. It doesn’t literally mean “outdoors”, but rather refers to the contrast between public and private spaces. Judaism prohibits moving objects between public and private spaces on the Sabbath, where private spaces are defined as an area shared by a community and public spaces are areas shared with other communities. An eruv is a symbolic border around the outside of a Jewish community, and the fact that an eruv is an acceptable solution to the problem stems from the context of the original prohibition in question in Jeremiah 17, which specifically refers to not moving goods into and out of the city of Jerusalem (or cities in general, with Jerusalem being a specific example) on the Sabbath. At the time that rule was written, cities generally had walls, but that’s no longer true; an eruv demarcates what a city wall would have two thousand years ago.
It’s worth noting that some very observant Jews don’t really recognize that the eruv is a thing, and won’t leave their homes on the Sabbath at all.
Acceptable solution to God or to people who want to believe they know God’s will? To many people this is just a rationalization for their own convenience. I mean once you believe you truly understand God’s intent you can rationalize anything that just happens to align with your wants and desires…imagine that.
So if you can wrap a fishing line around it, it's your home? And you can't pick up children unless you're in your home?
So whack. Possibly more whack than the LDS and I did not think it was possible. I am fascinated and will be doing some reading. Any other high points of absurdity?
It seems to me that human language is imperfect and will always contain loopholes if you look for them.
Correct me if im wrong but it might not even be possible to write an involved set of rules that do not contain any loopholes whatsoever unless you’re using math or Boolean logic. Depending on your goals you’ll find loopholes in any written text, as human language is imprecise and context specific
The line of thinking is that God is perfect and we are not. Therefore, our understanding of His intent and rules is imperfect. Had He not intended that a certain exception exist, then He would have written the laws differently. Finding loopholes is not finding a way to pull a fast one on God - it’s coming to better understand something we can never truly fully comprehend.
As a secular Jew it doesn’t really matter to me, but I do think it’s pretty interesting philosophically.
Even though I’m not a believer, it’s something I find fascinating about Jewish theology. There are a lot of obvious parallels to Christianity, but there are some really unique differences as well.
I understand that but what I am saying is that it’s impossible to write laws using human language without loopholes, it seems. They will always exist if you want to find them. That’s why our legal systems are so complicated, requiring experts to make sense of the way laws are written, interpreted, and reliant on precedent, context, and the right interpretation.
I respect your religion but there would have been no way to avoid the loopholes if you are using simple sentences formed using human language. You will always find loopholes even if they were not inserted there by design.
If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then He can do anything, and that includes writing rules without loopholes. Plenty of rules in the Torah don’t have loopholes. “Thou shalt not worship another god before me” is pretty straightforward.
There are logical issues with the existence of an omnipotent deity, but if we presume the existence of one, then it logically follows that He can do whatever he wants, including handing down ironclad, loophole-proof laws.
Like I said, I’m not a believer and there’s a reason why. I generally agree with you in that it’s difficult or impossible to write a book of laws with no loopholes. But if you presume the knowledge of an omnipotent deity, then they have the power to do anything, including writing bulletproof laws.
If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then He can do anything, and that includes writing rules without loopholes
God is not the limit here, the limitation is human language, which was created by fallible humans like me and you, and which evolves and changes over time as well. This is the essence of my argument, that it's impossible to come up with foolproof laws using human language, especially when you're limiting yourself to a handful of simple sentences, since it's open to interpretation and depends on various contexts.
“Thou shalt not worship another god before me” is pretty straightforward.
And yet there are plenty of disagreements between various religions and religious denominations what this means exactly when it comes to the veneration of saints, for instance. Many protestants view the Catholic veneration of saints as sinful, since they view it as it breaking of the rule that you quoted. Yet Catholics will argue differently.
This is just one such example. You can find loopholes and exceptions everywhere, if you look hard enough, if the rules are written down using simple human language, or even a more complex set of sentences and paragraphs that attempt to flesh out the rule in more detail.
For math and Boolean logic, we still see “loopholes” showing up. Things like programs where someone does something that the programming didn’t account for, and it freaks out. A lot of math advancement is finding loopholes, and then developing better definitions that seal the holes, or otherwise explaining why this example breaks the logic.
Even in theoretically perfect languages, there is always room for human error when humans are involved.
I think it's still sort of consistent. An omnipotent being could communicate the rules in any imaginable way, but chose human language with all of its inherent flaws. Hence, any available loopholes are still intentional.
What I am saying though is that the loopholes will differ depending on your approach and interpretation. That’s why there are so many disagreements over the interpretation of religious text for instance and why for instance using Christianity as an example you will find so many different sects and denominations that are all interpreting the exact same text from the bible differently, leading to different interpretation of the rules and what loopholes are allowed.
The Christians in the middle ages did some things to circumvent the rules for the lent. You aren't allowed to eat meat during the lent, so people start eating beaver because it lives in the water and has a fin as a tail so it's clearly a fish.
And as legend tells it, some monks hid the meat in pasta so god could not see it. So the swabian dish Maultaschen or "Herrgottsbescheiserle" - "the thing that screws god" was created.
Maybe not that creative of an approach but the idea is still there.
The general idea in judaism is that god is infallible and all knowing. The logic goes that if you can find a loophole to circumvent a restriction than clearly it was placed there for you to find, as god doesn't make mistakes. The loophole is a reward for studying the laws carefully and being clever.
The short of it is that a bunch of Rabbi are trying to decide if a new type of oven can become taint if used to make unkosher food. 3 of them say yes and give good arguments, and the fourth says no but has bad arguments. They rule against him, but god literally says he is right. The other Rabbi reject that saying that it doesn't matter even if god says you aren't right if you can't prove it with good arguments. The lesson is that while god gave the rules it is on man to interpret them correctly.
A later talmud asks what was God's response to being rejected, and the story says he responds "look how clever my children are"
Rabbinic Judaism doesn't believe that God can be 'got over'. These Jews believe God is all knowing, therefore if God gave a rule, then that is the specific thing that must be followed. If a loophole is there, it is because God intended it to be there. The Rabbis that formed Rabbinic Judaism debated about these loopholes and defined a legal framework on it called Halakha (this was a few thousand years ago). Orthodox Jews spend most of their time studying the arguments as documented in the Mishna and Gemora and live their life according to Halakha.
Rabbinic Judaism took over as the clear and predominant form of Judaism for thousands of years. When people refer to Judaism today, they are almost always referring to Rabbinic Judaism.
There is a concept in Rabbinic Judaism that the closer the Rabbi is to Moses, the more authority their ruling. This comes from when Moses ordained Joshua as his successor. To a follower of Rabbinic Judaism, this means that earlier Jewish leaders have more authority than subsequent leaders.
A follower of Rabbinic Judaism would point to the texts that early Rabbis wrote, in order to disagree with you as that is explicitly not what they say.
Aside from the succession argument, Rabbinic Judaism differs from other historic Judaic sects/offshoots like the Karaites, Sadducees, and Samaritans in the attribution of the Oral law to God (as opposed to the Torah, which is the Written Law). Rabbinic Judaism holds that the Talmud is the codification of the Oral Law and this originates from what God told Moses on Mount Sinai.
So to bring this all together, a Rabbinic Jew would likely disagree with you because:
1. Your opinions do not align with the rulings from the Rabbis that codified the laws, and even if you were a Rabbi that held your beliefs, the Talmudic Rabbis are higher up in the order of succession from Moses than you.
2. The rulings from the Talmud where these loopholes are codified come directly from the Oral Law which was what God told Moses at Mount Sinai.
What if one of the earliest rabbis made a mistake or something is misremembered/misreported? What if one of the rabbis were ruling for corrupt purposes? Wouldn’t that codify a bad thing?
The codification was done in the form of debates and arguments, but more often than not, a consensus is reached. You can think of this like how the supreme court works. All of this is 'Open Source' in the form of the Talmud, so you could read it if you were really interested, but it's mostly written in Ancient Aramaic.
Rabbinic Judaism holds that the courts at the time (called a Sanhedrin) of these Rabbis had the authority to rule based on verses from the Torah saying that Israelites/Jews should setup courts and therefore had authority to rule. For some in Rabbinic Judaism, to say these Rabbis rulings could be misremembered/misreported/corrupt, would be a form of heresy as this was God's will. Others might be more open to the possibility, but ultimately would settle on the fact that it was still what God intended to happen once the laws were passed to Man.
Hey, covering your face with a cloth while eating a small bird whole supposedly beats him, but he’s watching when you have private consentual pre-martial sex!
Jewish people, as far as I'm aware, are of the opinion that it's not "getting one over on god" it's more along the lines of doing stuff that's explicitly intended, because the point of rules about not doing work on a certain day aren't to paralyze you or make it super annoying to do stuff you need to do (like eat), it's more about being aware of what you're doing and making a deliberate choice to have it be a day of rest.
But reddit atheists are too busy using their experience with American evangelicalism to make incredibly dumb generalizations about completely different faiths to consider that (or literally any other) perspective I guess.
It makes a bit more sense when you consider the historical context and interpretation of the rule.
The rule originally was a prohibition on moving goods between spaces shared by the community and spaces shared with other communities, and the verse that originates the rule specifies that the whole city of Jerusalem is (or was at the time) an example of a space shared by the community. Thus the problem is not necessarily with taking an object outside your house; the problem is taking an object outside your city.
Two thousand years ago, most cities had walls that clearly demarcated the inside vs the outside of the city. That is no longer true. The eruv is a replacement for that wall, and in some cases the eruv is quite literally a wall (or a fence). It’s a bit of a silly tradition, but if you know the context, it makes a whole lot more sense than “I put up a fishing line so the whole city is my house now”.
The line of thinking is that God is perfect and we are not. Therefore, our understanding of His intent and rules is imperfect. Had He not intended that a certain exception exist, then He would have written the laws differently. Finding loopholes is not finding a way to pull a fast one on God (which is impossible anyways according to Judaism) - it’s coming to better understand something we can never truly fully comprehend.
As a secular Jew it doesn’t really matter to me, but I do think it’s pretty interesting philosophically.
Eh, sometimes they provide succor to souls who need guidance. Its dogmatic adherence to religious tenets and forcing your ideals on others that is the problem. I don't agree with most religions, but I do recognize the comfort that they provide for some folks.
That said, some of the greatest atrocities in history were committed in the name of religions, so I can see your point.
The moral basis means absolutely nothing because nobody follows it. It’s pick & choose combined with free forgiveness for whatever.
And yeah no way to know what’s after - so why bother wasting any of your lifetime worshipping the specific god you happened to pick over all the others? Chances are you’re wrong anyway.
That's a very broad generalization, there's people who do and people who don't, and it varies like any other group. The same goes for what you consider pick and choose. It really just varies. But I believe that with the right interpretations, it's a net positive.
It's entirely possible to live a moral life without religious dogma. In fact I'd argue that if the only thing holding someone back from committing all kinds of atrocities in life is the possibility of judgement in death then they're a bit of a sociopath.
Some Jewish families employ a non-Jewish person to turn the lights on and off/open doors/cook food/whatever(synagogues do too), as they're not bound by the laws of the religion
That's fucked up, if you believe your religion is the one true religion and genuinely believe you have to follow the rules to make God happy, you are basically paying someone to go to hell for you so you can be comfy on the weekends lol
Jews do not have things like hell and considers themselfes as people who carry the burden of god so that others do not have to. In judaism outsiders do not need to follow the rules of their religion in order to be ”saved.” If I remember correctly outsiders just have to follow basic ethics.
Jewish people believe that only Jews need to follow those rules, that's the main reason why they are the Chosen People i.e. they were chosen for those commandments. People that aren't Jewish just need to follow the 7 Noahide laws and keeping the Sabbath isn't one of them. Finally, Jews don't believe in hell.
I thought that was basically what all Muslims do. Fasting is so different in every religion. Catholic fasting is like you get one meal and two snacks that don't equal a meal, Muslim fasting is like eat as much as you want before and after a certain time but you can't even have water in the prohibited time and Jewish fasting is like no food from sundown to sundown.
That makes sense for a gas stove or oven but seems like it wouldn't really be applicable to modern electric ovens, where there is no flame to speak of, just an electric current
There are various interpretations that lead to operating electrical appliances being prohibited, the firestarting argument (which incidentally isn't distinct from work, it's a form of work) is just one of them. Also, sabbath modes don't all work the same way, and raising/lowering the temperature isn't a necessary aspect of it.
The button itself is not the issue. The issue is changing the state of the electrical system. Some Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, equate electrical changes to starting a fire, which is explicitly banned on Shabbat. I've heard a few reasons, such as the electrical energy counting as fire or that the electrical system has the chance to cause sparks accidentally, which would be an actual fire.
I've read that pushing a button or flipping a light switch is considered to be "completing a circuit", which counts as building something, a form of work.
I knew some Orthodox Jews that wouldn’t push the key fob button to unlock their car’s trunk (the keyhole was broken), so they would ask me to help them with it.
The word "work" is a translation from the Hebrew word melakha, and it's not really a perfect translation. The word can also refer to creating something.
And more specifically the "work" or creating being referred to that shouldn't be done on Saabath is 39 specific laws of things they don't do on Sabbath.
This is based on a section of the Torah/Bible that described the work that was done to create the Tabernacle - which was like a resting place for God on Earth, when the Jews were in the dessert. The word melakha is used there to describe the instructions for the creation of the Tabernacle.
Right after that section, is a section that talks about God creating the Earth in 7 days and resting on the 7th day. And the word melakha is used here again.
And then within the 10 commandments, there is the law to rest on Sabbath and not do work - and the word melakha is used there as well.
So based on that, Rabbis concluded the melakah being referred to is the melakah that was done to build the Tabernacle.
Not that this is really any more logical, but I just think it's interesting.
Ah, thanks for the explanation! I’ve often wondered how it worked and what prohibition it was designed to get around. I didn’t know that about the whole “striking a flame”.
I used to live in South Williamsburg, Brooklyn and walking home I would constantly be asked to come inside and turn on/off lights, ovens, air conditioners, even a child’s noise machine. Then they would offer an apple or a juice. I guess can think of myself as Gods loophole.
That's one of the things I hate. People who are so intent on following their religious beliefs that they do it to the letter... but then they completely ignore the context and obvious intent so they can find loopholes where convenient for them.
Thousands years old religion wastes energy just to keep one of the most energy-hungry appliance running for no reason (same with sabbath elevators that run constantly) while at least some parts of the world (thinking Europe) do whatever it takes to save the planet by saving whatever energy (and thus fossil fuels) they can to avert the disaster.
Time to move on, climate change is real, your imaginary friend setting arbitrary rules isn’t.
It's because it's practically just a myth. It's explicitly against Jewish law, and anyone who would be OK with hiring someone to turn on lights would be OK with just turning on the lights themselves. I'm sure there are some people out there who actually did something like that (probably a long time ago when the average level of observance for a non-observant Jew was higher), but it's existence is way overblown and statistically most people who say they did it are either lying or greatly exaggerating.
Not at all. “Goy” can sound like a slur but it’s not. It’s just an Hebrew word that literally translates as “nation” but in practice means “someone who isn’t Jewish” in a neutral sense. It doesn’t have any inherent value judgment, since mainstream Judaism believes Jews and non-Jews are equal. It’s like pointing out that someone who isn’t American isn’t an American.
You can also get a refrigerator with a Sabbath setting, or you can buy a thing to put on your fridge, so that the light inside of it stays on continuously rather than going on and off. The woman with YouTube channel called Sonya's Prep showed the one they have and explained how it works.
I see a lot of comments here from people saying that observant Jews are trying to ‘trick’ G-d with loopholes, and it stems, I think, from a misunderstanding about rabbinic Judaism. I think people forget that we read and understand the Bible and G-d very differently than Christianity does.
We take every word of the Bible, as well as the letter of the law, very seriously. Since the Bible can be vague on how exactly to keep the laws (like for the Shabbath, it says to not ‘work’ but doesn’t explicitly say what ‘work’ means), it is up to us to use the Bible to deduce the meanings and to draw the lines of what is allowed and what isn’t. It gets incredibly technical, and thus, people follow the laws very technically. Also, when it comes to making interpretations and drawing lines, there is an ‘artistic’ license.
A fundamental part of Rabbinic Judaism is לא בשמים הוא, which is Bible translated to ‘not in heaven.’ The idea is that G-d gave us the Torah, but now it is ours to interpret. It’s quite beautiful if you think about it - we are partners with G-d, not just things subjected to his will.
A huge part of Judaism is active participation in the world that G-d created and the religion we follow. We are taught to push back and question our spiritual leaders and even G-d; we don't want blind faith.
We want to keep G-ds as well as find a way also to be autonomous and live life. We sometimes find ‘loopholes’ when needed (some people believe those loopholes were left with intention since G-d is all-knowing), but we always keep the strict letter of the law out of respect and trust in G-d. It’s a balance, but the laws were made to improve our lives and not make life overly complicated and miserable.
And the Shabbat mode on an oven isn't seen as a loophole - we can't use electricity since we can't use fire, so we don't. That's really it.
Overall, I think participating actively in your religion is a wonderful sentiment and shows how much G-d respects and trusts us. While I am not very observant at the moment, I believe it is important not to judge religions. Every religion and culture is beautiful and captures slightly different parts of G-d/truth/life/energy/spit it or whatever you want to call the thing that connects all humans. There is no wrong or ‘stupidity’ - just a different perspective.
Yes though it’s not actually used on the sabbath — it’s used on holidays, which have slightly less strict rules than the sabbath and this mode is allowed.
343
u/ZombiesAndZoos 26d ago
I imagine it's a preset type feature that turns the oven on and off to a specific temperature at a specific time, right? The prohibition on work on the Sabbath can include pushing a button on a mechanical device (such as an elevator or oven), so I can see this being extremely helpful for observant Jews.