3 ms·

It's (usually) dangerous to discuss things like this in as small / low bandwidth-medium as a discussion thread, but I'll give it a shot. First, I would suggest

by pugio 7y ago

It's (usually) dangerous to discuss things like this in as small / low bandwidth-medium as a discussion thread, but I'll give it a shot. First, I would suggest that many things which seem "arbitrary and capricious" could be seen as signal to the listener that perhaps they don't quite understand the reasons behind the "arbitrary" thing (related: Chesterson's Fence [0]). Orthodox Judaism has a tradition of intense discussion and debate on _every single_ law, precept, and injunction, which leads to very few wholly arbitrary results. You may not agree with the outcome, but it's extremely unlikely that a law was enacted due to arbitrariness or malicious intent. Regarding Shabbat ("Sabbath") elevators, do you understand the spirit of the law? What is the intent (spirit) of prohibiting usage of electricity on Shabbat? It is, broadly, to preserve something known as the "spirit of Shabbat" – a feeling of rest, calm, and cessation from weekday productive, creative, or goal-oriented, pursuits. I can tell you that in today's hyper-connected tech world, lack of active electronics on Shabbat is one of the nicest parts of my existence. It feels so good to turn off, disconnect, and spend time with people who are similarly focused on what's in front of them: food, family, friends, and deep discussion. When nobody is using devices, everybody is wholly present, and interactions are much more satisfying. Halakha ("Jewish law") is very sensitive to the psychological state of its practitioners. Allowances which may appear as arbitrary "sneaky" loopholes are, in fact, carefully considered balances between necessities of life, psychology, autonomy, and community. To ignore any of those elements is to miss the point of the balance that halakha strives for. For instance, the Kosher Phone was produced for _some_ Orthodox Jewish communities whose constituent decisors (TFA: "by some interpretations") decided that children texting was harmful to the character of their kids. To state that conversation style and allowances change with the medium (ie. text vs voice) is, I think, a fairly reasonable assertion. Children will communicate differently via voice vs. text. Whether you want kids in your community (or your own children) to engage in that style of conversation is up to you, and your community's values and perceptions, but to state that disallowing such discourse is "arbitrary" "cherry-picked" "dogma" is to say more about your own understanding than the decision itself, and the thinking that went in to making it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

AstralStorm 7y ago
Historical reasons are always arbitrary. Because it's arbitrary to keep an old law that's past its usefulness alive. I understand attempts like Amish, where there is a clear social goal, but in Orthodox Judaism it's nowhere near as clear. It feels like a culture isolate kept to be a culture. This was important when the diaspora was new, dispersed and persecuted. Prohibitions against work were made because Jewish people have been exploited to exhaustion by enslaving Egyptians and additionally to make a day for worship. It's self-serving, though. not altogether bad. The exact rules made were quite arbitrary though, less exacting rules suffice to keep a day off and as "work" gets easier, the prohibitions should be delicately relaxed without essentially cheating around strict letter. The thing about both (some) Amish and (most) Orthodox Jews is the scorched earth approach. If they wanted to prevent the problem such as the excess, there are better solutions like limits. Time and amount.
kelnos 7y ago
Perhaps that's it, maybe I just disagree with the end result, and have somehow wrapped that up in a belief that the decisions are arbitrary. I guess I'm also using "arbitrary" differently, perhaps incorrectly. I don't mean it in the sense that people aren't thoroughly exploring the options and deciding on a course of action; I mean that the result isn't actually logically consistent and just flows from people being practical and needing to find a way to justify new things inside an old framework, whatever the cost. To me, that's "arbitrary". If that's not actually what that word means, I apologize, and will try to find a better word. From my perspective, I see the idea of the "Shabbos goy" to be, at best, weird, and at worst, acting in bad faith. To me, an Orthodox Jew is saying "I'm not allowed to do these things, and do not want to do them because I prefer the comfort and equanimity of being disconnected", but then turning around and using the fruits of others who do not adhere to those restrictions. Essentially people who use a Shabbos goy, to me, are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to benefit from the existence of the technology they are taking a break from, while pushing responsibility for that technology on others. Perhaps acting in this manner allows a practitioner to feel like they're preserving the spirit of Shabbat and gain benefit from the whole things, but to me, it's just dishonest. Obviously practitioners disagree, as is their prerogative. Just as it is mine to believe that people will often go through as many mental contortions as needed to justify their actions.

by pugio 7y ago

AstralStorm 7y ago

Historical reasons are always arbitrary. Because it's arbitrary to keep an old law that's past its usefulness alive. I understand attempts like Amish, where there is a clear social goal, but in Orthodox Judaism it's nowhere near as clear. It feels like a culture isolate kept to be a culture. This was important when the diaspora was new, dispersed and persecuted. Prohibitions against work were made because Jewish people have been exploited to exhaustion by enslaving Egyptians and additionally to make a day for worship. It's self-serving, though. not altogether bad. The exact rules made were quite arbitrary though, less exacting rules suffice to keep a day off and as "work" gets easier, the prohibitions should be delicately relaxed without essentially cheating around strict letter. The thing about both (some) Amish and (most) Orthodox Jews is the scorched earth approach. If they wanted to prevent the problem such as the excess, there are better solutions like limits. Time and amount.

kelnos 7y ago

Perhaps that's it, maybe I just disagree with the end result, and have somehow wrapped that up in a belief that the decisions are arbitrary. I guess I'm also using "arbitrary" differently, perhaps incorrectly. I don't mean it in the sense that people aren't thoroughly exploring the options and deciding on a course of action; I mean that the result isn't actually logically consistent and just flows from people being practical and needing to find a way to justify new things inside an old framework, whatever the cost. To me, that's "arbitrary". If that's not actually what that word means, I apologize, and will try to find a better word. From my perspective, I see the idea of the "Shabbos goy" to be, at best, weird, and at worst, acting in bad faith. To me, an Orthodox Jew is saying "I'm not allowed to do these things, and do not want to do them because I prefer the comfort and equanimity of being disconnected", but then turning around and using the fruits of others who do not adhere to those restrictions. Essentially people who use a Shabbos goy, to me, are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to benefit from the existence of the technology they are taking a break from, while pushing responsibility for that technology on others. Perhaps acting in this manner allows a practitioner to feel like they're preserving the spirit of Shabbat and gain benefit from the whole things, but to me, it's just dishonest. Obviously practitioners disagree, as is their prerogative. Just as it is mine to believe that people will often go through as many mental contortions as needed to justify their actions.