On 28/11/2023 17:11, Bob wrote:
> On 28.11.23 12:45, Recliner wrote:
>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>> On 28/11/2023 10:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/11/2023 09:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 23:37:59 GMT
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/kensington-council-rejects-solution-for-je
>>>>>>>> wish-sects-tube-travel-ban-67685/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good on the council, some common sense for a change. We shouldn't
>>>>>>> pander to
>>>>>>> delusional religious extremists though why do I have a sneaking
>>>>>>> suspicion that
>>>>>>> if they were a muslim sect the worthies in the council would have
>>>>>>> bent over
>>>>>>> backwards to accomodate them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I don't get is why they can't some other rabbi to decide that
>>>>>> as you
>>>>>> have to go outdoors to get between the foot tunnel and the museum,
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> aren't under the same roof at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There used to be an exit from the subway which took you directly into
>>>>> the entrance hall.  It may well be that that is still in existence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that's the issue. If it were, then their proposed
>>>> solution
>>>> wouldn't be acceptable.
>>>
>>> I'll gladly defer to your understanding of the halakha.  I  gave up even
>>> trying many moons ago and took at face value their assertion that the
>>> outside archway would break up "the one roof phenomenon".  I would
>>> however offer the possibility that the archway has effect (in Jewish
>>> law) below the level of the pavement so as to sever the connection in
>>> the subway which does continue into the Science Museum.
>>
>> The black sheet steel between the two entrances is apparently important;
>> the unobtrusive archway alone isn't enough. So it must represent a wall
>> that extends beyond the slightly overhanging roof above, so there's no
>> unbroken path between the two entrances under the roof.
>>
>> It seems people here aren't familiar how far the Sabbath rules go (though
>> this issue is nothing to do with the Sabbath). This piece gives a
>> flavour:
>>
>> https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/seasonal/501/the-travelers-halachic-guide-to-hotels/
>>
>> I first came across on a visit Jerusalem. I was going down to dinner, and
>> went to the lifts. I saw a group of people clustered around the far lift,
>> but the lift call light wasn't lit up. So I pressed the button, the lift
>> duly arrived, and the group all rushed across to join me. I duly pressed
>> the lift button to go the ground floor, and we travelled non-stop.
>> Later, I
>> discovered that they weren't allowed to press the lift button, but were
>> waiting for the stopping lift that runs on the Sabbath. But once I'd
>> pressed the button, tgey were free to join me.
>
> Making electrical circuits manually is forbidden. This means things like
> lightswitches, lift call buttons and pedestrian crossing buttons are not
> allowed. There is even an issue with refrigerator lights. Something that
> happens independently of a person's actions can be utilised, though, and
> an automatic system that was set in progress beforehand is fine. Hence
> lights on a timer are OK, and a lift that endlessly runs stopping on
> every floor is OK. Some fridges come with Sabbath mode where the
> internal light is disabled on a timer.
>
> The rules on getting assistance also pose peculiarities. If a gentile
> does something of their own free will, it is totally fine to make use of
> that. So in the lift example, because you wanted to go to the ground
> floor yourself, it was fine for them to come along for the ride. It is
> not, however, acceptable to ask for help. Askign someone to do something
> forbidden is regarded as the same as doing it yourself. This led to the
> odd concept of the Shabbos Goy, a gentile aquaintance who comes around
> on the Sabbath and helps out by doing forbidden tasks. As it is
> forbidden to both pay for the help and to directly ask for it, there
> ensues an odd process of passing remarks about how it would be nice is
> some task or other happened to be done (without actually asking for it
> to be done), and of having a sum of money sitting in a place where the
> goy might find it and take it away, with no explicit statement that it
> is payment.
>

So if the lift fails at 0001 hours on the sabbath you're not allowed to
call for help at 0001 the next morning?

On 28/11/2023 12:58, Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:35:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <uk4eoi$7urq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:17:54 on Tue, 28 Nov
>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>> Somebody needs to point out to the rabbi that there are many entrances
>>> to the UndergrounD that share premises with a wide variety of different
>>> organisations, some of which may well contain human remains for any
>>> number of reasons. He should go round and check each and every one of
>>> them before allowing his flock to use the tube.
>>
>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use money on
>> the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles "technology" (although
>> apparently light switches and so on have somehow become exempt).
>>
>> Either would preclude their use of any form of public transport
>> (although I did have one such friend at University who would allow
>> others to pay for his taxi).
>>
> Use an Oyster card. Top it up on a Friday. Sorted :-)

Still using money, no different to using a credit/debit card.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 28/11/2023 13:10, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <5uobmihavb0cpj3g8e6elmhjkte6dttqti@4ax.com>, at 12:58:41 on
> Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:35:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <uk4eoi$7urq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:17:54 on Tue, 28 Nov
>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Somebody needs to point out to the rabbi that there are many entrances
>>>> to the UndergrounD that share premises with a wide variety of different
>>>> organisations, some of which may well contain human remains for any
>>>> number of reasons. He should go round and check each and every one of
>>>> them before allowing his flock to use the tube.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use money on
>>> the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles "technology" (although
>>> apparently light switches and so on have somehow become exempt).
>>>
>>> Either would preclude their use of any form of public transport
>>> (although I did have one such friend at University who would allow
>>> others to pay for his taxi).
>>>
>> Use an Oyster card.  Top it up on a Friday.  Sorted :-)
>
> That's a potentially wonderful loophole, Oyster Cards famously not being
> money, because TfL would need to register as a Bank. But what would the
> Old Testament say about it?
>

Did Moses have a credit card?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

> Bob wrote:
>
>> Making electrical circuits manually is forbidden.
>
> I'd love to see where it forbids that in the Torah.

I think it's classed as "making fire" and that's what's banned

On 28/11/2023 17:16, Bob wrote:
> On 28.11.23 17:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uk54ms$bb9a$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:29 on Tue, 28 Nov
>> 2023, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>> On 28/11/2023 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use
>>>>>> money on
>>>>>> the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles "technology" (although
>>>>>> apparently light switches and so on have somehow become exempt).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they're not.
>>
>>>>  They are still forbidden?
>>>
>>> Absolutely.
>>
>> Are candles also forbidden, or is falling down the stairs in the
>> middle of the night a religious imperative
>
> The rule, formally, is against making fire. As electrical switches can
> cause small sparks in their operation, they are interpreted as falling
> under the category of "making fire". A candle is, more obviously, making
> fire, so is definitely forbidden. An automatic system that works without
> any manual intervention is fine, though, both timer activated lights or
> lights activated by motion sensors are fine.
>

Motion sensors are most definitely /not/ an acceptable as a means
activation among the strict orthodox. They also reject PIR detectors to
operate pedestrian lights for road crossings leading to some operating
every 90 seconds from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday - even in the
middle of the night. I speak as a London driver who has sat at them.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uk54ms$bb9a$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:29 on Tue, 28 Nov
> 2023, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>> On 28/11/2023 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use money on
>>>>> the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles "technology" (although
>>>>> apparently light switches and so on have somehow become exempt).
>>>>
>>>> No, they're not.
>
>>> They are still forbidden?
>>
>> Absolutely.
>
> Are candles also forbidden, or is falling down the stairs in the middle
> of the night a religious imperative
>
>>>>> Either would preclude their use of any form of public transport
>>>>> (although I did have one such friend at University who would allow
>>>>> others to pay for his taxi).
>>>>
>>>> This isn't anything to do with observing the Sabbath.
>
>>> He claimed he wasn't allowed to handle money on the Sabbath.
>>
>> He isn't allowed to handle money, and he isn't allowed to travel, so at
>> least he only did 1 out of 2.
>
> New concept: not allowed to travel. Is house arrest on the Sabbeth a
> thing?

They're not allowed to travel on mechanised vehicles on the the Sabbath,
but that's nothing to do with this story.

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 28/11/2023 17:11, Bob wrote:
>> On 28.11.23 12:45, Recliner wrote:
>>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>> On 28/11/2023 10:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/11/2023 09:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 23:37:59 GMT
>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/kensington-council-rejects-solution-for-je
>>>>>>>>> wish-sects-tube-travel-ban-67685/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good on the council, some common sense for a change. We shouldn't
>>>>>>>> pander to
>>>>>>>> delusional religious extremists though why do I have a sneaking
>>>>>>>> suspicion that
>>>>>>>> if they were a muslim sect the worthies in the council would have
>>>>>>>> bent over
>>>>>>>> backwards to accomodate them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I don't get is why they can't some other rabbi to decide that
>>>>>>> as you
>>>>>>> have to go outdoors to get between the foot tunnel and the museum,
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> aren't under the same roof at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There used to be an exit from the subway which took you directly into
>>>>>> the entrance hall.  It may well be that that is still in existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that's the issue. If it were, then their proposed
>>>>> solution
>>>>> wouldn't be acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> I'll gladly defer to your understanding of the halakha.  I  gave up even
>>>> trying many moons ago and took at face value their assertion that the
>>>> outside archway would break up "the one roof phenomenon".  I would
>>>> however offer the possibility that the archway has effect (in Jewish
>>>> law) below the level of the pavement so as to sever the connection in
>>>> the subway which does continue into the Science Museum.
>>>
>>> The black sheet steel between the two entrances is apparently important;
>>> the unobtrusive archway alone isn't enough. So it must represent a wall
>>> that extends beyond the slightly overhanging roof above, so there's no
>>> unbroken path between the two entrances under the roof.
>>>
>>> It seems people here aren't familiar how far the Sabbath rules go (though
>>> this issue is nothing to do with the Sabbath). This piece gives a
>>> flavour:
>>>
>>> https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/seasonal/501/the-travelers-halachic-guide-to-hotels/
>>>
>>> I first came across on a visit Jerusalem. I was going down to dinner, and
>>> went to the lifts. I saw a group of people clustered around the far lift,
>>> but the lift call light wasn't lit up. So I pressed the button, the lift
>>> duly arrived, and the group all rushed across to join me. I duly pressed
>>> the lift button to go the ground floor, and we travelled non-stop.
>>> Later, I
>>> discovered that they weren't allowed to press the lift button, but were
>>> waiting for the stopping lift that runs on the Sabbath. But once I'd
>>> pressed the button, tgey were free to join me.
>>
>> Making electrical circuits manually is forbidden. This means things like
>> lightswitches, lift call buttons and pedestrian crossing buttons are not
>> allowed. There is even an issue with refrigerator lights. Something that
>> happens independently of a person's actions can be utilised, though, and
>> an automatic system that was set in progress beforehand is fine. Hence
>> lights on a timer are OK, and a lift that endlessly runs stopping on
>> every floor is OK. Some fridges come with Sabbath mode where the
>> internal light is disabled on a timer.
>>
>> The rules on getting assistance also pose peculiarities. If a gentile
>> does something of their own free will, it is totally fine to make use of
>> that. So in the lift example, because you wanted to go to the ground
>> floor yourself, it was fine for them to come along for the ride. It is
>> not, however, acceptable to ask for help. Askign someone to do something
>> forbidden is regarded as the same as doing it yourself. This led to the
>> odd concept of the Shabbos Goy, a gentile aquaintance who comes around
>> on the Sabbath and helps out by doing forbidden tasks. As it is
>> forbidden to both pay for the help and to directly ask for it, there
>> ensues an odd process of passing remarks about how it would be nice is
>> some task or other happened to be done (without actually asking for it
>> to be done), and of having a sum of money sitting in a place where the
>> goy might find it and take it away, with no explicit statement that it
>> is payment.
>>
>
> So if the lift fails at 0001 hours on the sabbath you're not allowed to
> call for help at 0001 the next morning?

Sabbath does not start nor end at 0001.

In message <DZp9N.2366$aqP3.1028@fx14.ams1>, at 18:05:23 on Tue, 28 Nov
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uk54ms$bb9a$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:29 on Tue, 28 Nov
>> 2023, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>> On 28/11/2023 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use money on
>>>>>> the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles "technology" (although
>>>>>> apparently light switches and so on have somehow become exempt).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they're not.
>>
>>>> They are still forbidden?
>>>
>>> Absolutely.
>>
>> Are candles also forbidden, or is falling down the stairs in the middle
>> of the night a religious imperative
>>
>>>>>> Either would preclude their use of any form of public transport
>>>>>> (although I did have one such friend at University who would allow
>>>>>> others to pay for his taxi).
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't anything to do with observing the Sabbath.
>>
>>>> He claimed he wasn't allowed to handle money on the Sabbath.
>>>
>>> He isn't allowed to handle money, and he isn't allowed to travel, so at
>>> least he only did 1 out of 2.
>>
>> New concept: not allowed to travel. Is house arrest on the Sabbeth a
>> thing?
>
>They're not allowed to travel on mechanised vehicles on the the Sabbath,
>but that's nothing to do with this story.

Despite my strict friend agreeing that if someone else paid for the
mechanised vehicle, it was OK?
--
Roland Perry

On 28/11/2023 17:30, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 28/11/2023 13:10, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <5uobmihavb0cpj3g8e6elmhjkte6dttqti@4ax.com>, at 12:58:41
>> on Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:35:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <uk4eoi$7urq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:17:54 on Tue, 28 Nov
>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Somebody needs to point out to the rabbi that there are many entrances
>>>>> to the UndergrounD that share premises with a wide variety of
>>>>> different
>>>>> organisations, some of which may well contain human remains for any
>>>>> number of reasons. He should go round and check each and every one of
>>>>> them before allowing his flock to use the tube.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use
>>>> money on
>>>> the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles "technology" (although
>>>> apparently light switches and so on have somehow become exempt).
>>>>
>>>> Either would preclude their use of any form of public transport
>>>> (although I did have one such friend at University who would allow
>>>> others to pay for his taxi).
>>>>
>>> Use an Oyster card.  Top it up on a Friday.  Sorted :-)
>>
>> That's a potentially wonderful loophole, Oyster Cards famously not
>> being money, because TfL would need to register as a Bank. But what
>> would the Old Testament say about it?
>
> Did Moses have a credit card?

He certainly had a tablet.

On 28/11/2023 18:07, Recliner wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/11/2023 17:11, Bob wrote:
>>> On 28.11.23 12:45, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 28/11/2023 10:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/11/2023 09:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 23:37:59 GMT
>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/kensington-council-rejects-solution-for-je
>>>>>>>>>> wish-sects-tube-travel-ban-67685/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good on the council, some common sense for a change. We shouldn't
>>>>>>>>> pander to
>>>>>>>>> delusional religious extremists though why do I have a sneaking
>>>>>>>>> suspicion that
>>>>>>>>> if they were a muslim sect the worthies in the council would have
>>>>>>>>> bent over
>>>>>>>>> backwards to accomodate them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I don't get is why they can't some other rabbi to decide that
>>>>>>>> as you
>>>>>>>> have to go outdoors to get between the foot tunnel and the museum,
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> aren't under the same roof at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There used to be an exit from the subway which took you directly into
>>>>>>> the entrance hall.  It may well be that that is still in existence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that's the issue. If it were, then their proposed
>>>>>> solution
>>>>>> wouldn't be acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll gladly defer to your understanding of the halakha.  I  gave up even
>>>>> trying many moons ago and took at face value their assertion that the
>>>>> outside archway would break up "the one roof phenomenon".  I would
>>>>> however offer the possibility that the archway has effect (in Jewish
>>>>> law) below the level of the pavement so as to sever the connection in
>>>>> the subway which does continue into the Science Museum.
>>>>
>>>> The black sheet steel between the two entrances is apparently important;
>>>> the unobtrusive archway alone isn't enough. So it must represent a wall
>>>> that extends beyond the slightly overhanging roof above, so there's no
>>>> unbroken path between the two entrances under the roof.
>>>>
>>>> It seems people here aren't familiar how far the Sabbath rules go (though
>>>> this issue is nothing to do with the Sabbath). This piece gives a
>>>> flavour:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/seasonal/501/the-travelers-halachic-guide-to-hotels/
>>>>
>>>> I first came across on a visit Jerusalem. I was going down to dinner, and
>>>> went to the lifts. I saw a group of people clustered around the far lift,
>>>> but the lift call light wasn't lit up. So I pressed the button, the lift
>>>> duly arrived, and the group all rushed across to join me. I duly pressed
>>>> the lift button to go the ground floor, and we travelled non-stop.
>>>> Later, I
>>>> discovered that they weren't allowed to press the lift button, but were
>>>> waiting for the stopping lift that runs on the Sabbath. But once I'd
>>>> pressed the button, tgey were free to join me.
>>>
>>> Making electrical circuits manually is forbidden. This means things like
>>> lightswitches, lift call buttons and pedestrian crossing buttons are not
>>> allowed. There is even an issue with refrigerator lights. Something that
>>> happens independently of a person's actions can be utilised, though, and
>>> an automatic system that was set in progress beforehand is fine. Hence
>>> lights on a timer are OK, and a lift that endlessly runs stopping on
>>> every floor is OK. Some fridges come with Sabbath mode where the
>>> internal light is disabled on a timer.
>>>
>>> The rules on getting assistance also pose peculiarities. If a gentile
>>> does something of their own free will, it is totally fine to make use of
>>> that. So in the lift example, because you wanted to go to the ground
>>> floor yourself, it was fine for them to come along for the ride. It is
>>> not, however, acceptable to ask for help. Askign someone to do something
>>> forbidden is regarded as the same as doing it yourself. This led to the
>>> odd concept of the Shabbos Goy, a gentile aquaintance who comes around
>>> on the Sabbath and helps out by doing forbidden tasks. As it is
>>> forbidden to both pay for the help and to directly ask for it, there
>>> ensues an odd process of passing remarks about how it would be nice is
>>> some task or other happened to be done (without actually asking for it
>>> to be done), and of having a sum of money sitting in a place where the
>>> goy might find it and take it away, with no explicit statement that it
>>> is payment.
>>>
>>
>> So if the lift fails at 0001 hours on the sabbath you're not allowed to
>> call for help at 0001 the next morning?
>
> Sabbath does not start nor end at 0001.

It came close on 15 July this year in Fairbanks, Alaska: 0001 to 2358.
<https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/fairbanks?month=7&year=2023>

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <DZp9N.2366$aqP3.1028@fx14.ams1>, at 18:05:23 on Tue, 28 Nov
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <uk54ms$bb9a$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:29 on Tue, 28 Nov
>>> 2023, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>> On 28/11/2023 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use money on
>>>>>>> the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles "technology" (although
>>>>>>> apparently light switches and so on have somehow become exempt).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they're not.
>>>
>>>>> They are still forbidden?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> Are candles also forbidden, or is falling down the stairs in the middle
>>> of the night a religious imperative
>>>
>>>>>>> Either would preclude their use of any form of public transport
>>>>>>> (although I did have one such friend at University who would allow
>>>>>>> others to pay for his taxi).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't anything to do with observing the Sabbath.
>>>
>>>>> He claimed he wasn't allowed to handle money on the Sabbath.
>>>>
>>>> He isn't allowed to handle money, and he isn't allowed to travel, so at
>>>> least he only did 1 out of 2.
>>>
>>> New concept: not allowed to travel. Is house arrest on the Sabbeth a
>>> thing?
>>
>> They're not allowed to travel on mechanised vehicles on the the Sabbath,
>> but that's nothing to do with this story.
>
> Despite my strict friend agreeing that if someone else paid for the
> mechanised vehicle, it was OK?

It is not OK for an orthodox, observant Jew to travel by car, bus, train or
plane on the Shabbat. In Jerusalem, cars are likely to be stoned if they
try to drive through ultra-orthodox areas.

Of course, some are more diligent than others at observing the many rules.
For example, plenty of Jews drive to the synagogue on Saturday, but park
out of sight, and walk the last couple of hundred yards.

But, again, this story has absolutely nothing to do with Shabbat rules.

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 28.11.23 17:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uk54ms$bb9a$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:29 on Tue, 28 Nov
>> 2023, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>> On 28/11/2023 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use
>>>>>> money on
>>>>>> the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles "technology" (although
>>>>>> apparently light switches and so on have somehow become exempt).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they're not.
>>
>>>>  They are still forbidden?
>>>
>>> Absolutely.
>>
>> Are candles also forbidden, or is falling down the stairs in the middle
>> of the night a religious imperative
>
> The rule, formally, is against making fire. As electrical switches can
> cause small sparks in their operation, they are interpreted as falling
> under the category of "making fire". A candle is, more obviously, making
> fire, so is definitely forbidden. An automatic system that works without
> any manual intervention is fine, though, both timer activated lights or
> lights activated by motion sensors are fine.

Does the timer have to be set before the start of the Sabbath? Or could a
purely mechanical timer be started at bed time on Friday night, that would
switch off the lights in about 10 minutes?

Of course, these are really philosophical questions. They come up with
bizarre interpretations of ancient rules that made good sense at the time,
then come up with strange workarounds for the strange rules they've
devised.

For example, the Sabbath was really just a perfectly sensible,
ahead-of-its-time HR policy: everyone got a guaranteed day off from work
each week. The unions insisted on a definition of the 'work' that shouldn't
be performed on the day off, much as modern trade unions do. Of course, the
definition related to the work performed in biblical times. Similarly the
diet rules made sense in a hot climate without refrigeration: avoid foods
that go off quickly, and could become toxic.

And now we end up with a confusing mishmash of silly modern interpretations
that are completely unrelated to the well-meaning original intent. Most
modern Jews don't pay them much attention, but an ultra-orthodox minority
become obsessed with the petty, modern interpretations of the simple,
sensible original rules.

They then devise symbolic loopholes like eruvs, auto-timers, stopping
lifts, Sabbath mode on appliances or the ugly, pointless appendage on the
museum. As the rules can be suspended anyway in life-threatening
situations, why not hand out derogations more readily, as with UK rolling
stock?

On 28.11.23 18:53, Robin wrote:
> On 28/11/2023 17:16, Bob wrote:
>> On 28.11.23 17:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uk54ms$bb9a$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:29 on Tue, 28 Nov
>>> 2023, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>> On 28/11/2023 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use
>>>>>>> money on
>>>>>>> the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles "technology" (although
>>>>>>> apparently light switches and so on have somehow become exempt).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they're not.
>>>
>>>>>  They are still forbidden?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> Are candles also forbidden, or is falling down the stairs in the
>>> middle of the night a religious imperative
>>
>> The rule, formally, is against making fire. As electrical switches can
>> cause small sparks in their operation, they are interpreted as falling
>> under the category of "making fire". A candle is, more obviously,
>> making fire, so is definitely forbidden. An automatic system that
>> works without any manual intervention is fine, though, both timer
>> activated lights or lights activated by motion sensors are fine.
>>
>
> Motion sensors are most definitely /not/ an acceptable as a means
> activation among the strict orthodox.  They also reject PIR detectors to
> operate pedestrian lights for road crossings leading to some operating
> every 90 seconds from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday - even in the
> middle of the night.  I speak as a London driver who has sat at them.

I was obviously misinformed on these cases. I had read/been told at some
point in the past that sensors that did not require physical
interactions were OK. None of the Jewish people I have known personally
have taken the rules seriously enough to adhere to them to this extent,
so my knowledge is 3rd hand.

Robin

In message <uk6q13$ngas$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:27 on Wed, 29 Nov
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 28.11.23 18:53, Robin wrote:
>> On 28/11/2023 17:16, Bob wrote:
>>> On 28.11.23 17:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <uk54ms$bb9a$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:29 on Tue, 28
>>>>Nov 2023, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>>> On 28/11/2023 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use
>>>>>>>>money on the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles
>>>>>>>>"technology" (although apparently light switches and so on have
>>>>>>>>somehow become exempt).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they're not.
>>>>
>>>>>>  They are still forbidden?
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely.
>>>>
>>>> Are candles also forbidden, or is falling down the stairs in the
>>>>middle of the night a religious imperative
>>>
>>> The rule, formally, is against making fire. As electrical switches
>>>can cause small sparks in their operation, they are interpreted as
>>>falling under the category of "making fire". A candle is, more
>>>obviously, making fire, so is definitely forbidden. An automatic
>>>system that works without any manual intervention is fine, though,
>>>both timer activated lights or lights activated by motion sensors are fine.
>>>
>> Motion sensors are most definitely /not/ an acceptable as a means
>>activation among the strict orthodox.  They also reject PIR detectors
>>to operate pedestrian lights for road crossings leading to some
>>operating every 90 seconds from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday -
>>even in the middle of the night.  I speak as a London driver who has
>>sat at them.
>
>I was obviously misinformed on these cases. I had read/been told at
>some point in the past that sensors that did not require physical
>interactions were OK. None of the Jewish people I have known personally
>have taken the rules seriously enough to adhere to them to this extent,
>so my knowledge is 3rd hand.

Some take the rules extremely seriously.

I remember picking up a relative from Manchester airport perhaps 15yrs
ago, and there were numerous recently-landed Orthodox Jews waiting
outside for their lifts, wearing top-hats wrapped inside supermarket
carrier bags because it was raining.

I don't criticise for them following their religion, but I also don't
fear to point out what lengths it sometimes goes to.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uk6q13$ngas$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:42:27 on Wed, 29 Nov
> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 28.11.23 18:53, Robin wrote:
>>> On 28/11/2023 17:16, Bob wrote:
>>>> On 28.11.23 17:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <uk54ms$bb9a$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:29 on Tue, 28
>>>>> Nov 2023, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>>>> On 28/11/2023 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use
>>>>>>>>> money on the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles
>>>>>>>>> "technology" (although apparently light switches and so on have
>>>>>>>>> somehow become exempt).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, they're not.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  They are still forbidden?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are candles also forbidden, or is falling down the stairs in the
>>>>> middle of the night a religious imperative
>>>>
>>>> The rule, formally, is against making fire. As electrical switches
>>>> can cause small sparks in their operation, they are interpreted as
>>>> falling under the category of "making fire". A candle is, more
>>>> obviously, making fire, so is definitely forbidden. An automatic
>>>> system that works without any manual intervention is fine, though,
>>>> both timer activated lights or lights activated by motion sensors are fine.
>>>>
>>> Motion sensors are most definitely /not/ an acceptable as a means
>>> activation among the strict orthodox.  They also reject PIR detectors
>>> to operate pedestrian lights for road crossings leading to some
>>> operating every 90 seconds from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday -
>>> even in the middle of the night.  I speak as a London driver who has
>>> sat at them.
>>
>> I was obviously misinformed on these cases. I had read/been told at
>> some point in the past that sensors that did not require physical
>> interactions were OK. None of the Jewish people I have known personally
>> have taken the rules seriously enough to adhere to them to this extent,
>> so my knowledge is 3rd hand.
>
> Some take the rules extremely seriously.
>
> I remember picking up a relative from Manchester airport perhaps 15yrs
> ago, and there were numerous recently-landed Orthodox Jews waiting
> outside for their lifts, wearing top-hats wrapped inside supermarket
> carrier bags because it was raining.
>
> I don't criticise for them following their religion, but I also don't
> fear to point out what lengths it sometimes goes to.

Those are Hasidic Jews, who still wear outfits that are similar to the
style Polish nobility wore in the 18th century, when Hasidic Judaism began.
So it's more of a cultural than a religious thing.

Most orthodox Jews don't dress that way, but all observant, Orthodox Jews
cover their heads (the women usually wear wigs, scarves or hats). So if you
see a Jew wearing a kippah when not attending a religious service, it is a
strong indication that they are also kosher, and probably follow the
Shabbat rules fairly strictly. There may not be anything else about their
appearance that marks them out as orthodox Jews.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 17:51:41 +0000
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> Bob wrote:
>>
>>> Making electrical circuits manually is forbidden.
>>
>> I'd love to see where it forbids that in the Torah.
>
>I think it's classed as "making fire" and that's what's banned

Sounds like some ignorant Rabbi back in the day who didn't understand
electricity just lumped it under whatever category was the least worst fit.

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 28.11.23 17:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uk54ms$bb9a$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:29 on Tue, 28 Nov
>> 2023, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>> On 28/11/2023 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use
>>>>>> money on
>>>>>> the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles "technology" (although
>>>>>> apparently light switches and so on have somehow become exempt).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they're not.
>>
>>>>  They are still forbidden?
>>>
>>> Absolutely.
>>
>> Are candles also forbidden, or is falling down the stairs in the middle
>> of the night a religious imperative
>
> The rule, formally, is against making fire. As electrical switches can
> cause small sparks in their operation, they are interpreted as falling
> under the category of "making fire". A candle is, more obviously, making
> fire, so is definitely forbidden. An automatic system that works without
> any manual intervention is fine, though, both timer activated lights or
> lights activated by motion sensors are fine.

I think I remember a discussion in another place (Mark G may remember it as
well) where it was said that the turning on of a light switch was forbidden
but turning it off was not. Some Jewish people would enlist gentile
friends to turn their lights on on the evening of the Sabbath, but were
content to turn them off themselves. I wondered aloud if anyone had
considered the fact that turning a switch off was much more likely to draw
a spark internally then switching it on, but no one had an answer.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 28.11.23 17:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uk54ms$bb9a$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:29 on Tue, 28 Nov
>>> 2023, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>> On 28/11/2023 12:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use
>>>>>>> money on
>>>>>>> the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles "technology" (although
>>>>>>> apparently light switches and so on have somehow become exempt).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they're not.
>>>
>>>>>  They are still forbidden?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> Are candles also forbidden, or is falling down the stairs in the middle
>>> of the night a religious imperative
>>
>> The rule, formally, is against making fire. As electrical switches can
>> cause small sparks in their operation, they are interpreted as falling
>> under the category of "making fire". A candle is, more obviously, making
>> fire, so is definitely forbidden. An automatic system that works without
>> any manual intervention is fine, though, both timer activated lights or
>> lights activated by motion sensors are fine.
>
> I think I remember a discussion in another place (Mark G may remember it as
> well) where it was said that the turning on of a light switch was forbidden
> but turning it off was not. Some Jewish people would enlist gentile
> friends to turn their lights on on the evening of the Sabbath, but were
> content to turn them off themselves. I wondered aloud if anyone had
> considered the fact that turning a switch off was much more likely to draw
> a spark internally then switching it on, but no one had an answer.
>

The logic may be based on not being allowed to work, or causing others to
work, on the day of rest (Shabbat). So, turning on a light is causing work
to be done, and forbidden, but turning it off is actually helping to
enforce the Shabbatt.

The prohibition on handling money may similarly be based on not paying
others to do work on the Shabbatt.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:31:48 +0000, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:

>On 28/11/2023 17:30, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 28/11/2023 13:10, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <5uobmihavb0cpj3g8e6elmhjkte6dttqti@4ax.com>, at 12:58:41
>>> on Tue, 28 Nov 2023, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:35:29 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <uk4eoi$7urq$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:17:54 on Tue, 28 Nov
>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Somebody needs to point out to the rabbi that there are many entrances
>>>>>> to the UndergrounD that share premises with a wide variety of
>>>>>> different
>>>>>> organisations, some of which may well contain human remains for any
>>>>>> number of reasons. He should go round and check each and every one of
>>>>>> them before allowing his flock to use the tube.
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is that strict observers aren't allowed to use
>>>>> money on
>>>>> the Sabbath, nor use anything that resembles "technology" (although
>>>>> apparently light switches and so on have somehow become exempt).
>>>>>
>>>>> Either would preclude their use of any form of public transport
>>>>> (although I did have one such friend at University who would allow
>>>>> others to pay for his taxi).
>>>>>
>>>> Use an Oyster card.  Top it up on a Friday.  Sorted :-)
>>>
>>> That's a potentially wonderful loophole, Oyster Cards famously not
>>> being money, because TfL would need to register as a Bank. But what
>>> would the Old Testament say about it?
>>
>> Did Moses have a credit card?
>
>He certainly had a tablet.
>
.... and a motorbike whose roar was heard throughout Isreal.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 14:32:16 +0000, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:

>On 28/11/2023 09:38, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> I remember that, was a big fuss. You have to wonder if someones religious rules
>> are so inviolate that a bit of string allows them to to bypass them
>
>When my father bought a new-build house, he pointed to the spec that
>said the builders would install a fence. So, they stuck a couple of
>poles in the ground and a bit of string between them, and said that's
>your fence.
>
>The eruv string similarly represents the most minimal fence you can
>possibly get away with. You may think it's ridiculous - well, it is
>ridiculous! - but it's pretty harmless. It's just some fishing line
>strung between the lamp posts, and you have to look pretty hard to spot it.
>
It is a continuous boundary marker rather than a fence; it doesn't
need to be capable of containing stock or excluding the mother-in-law.
You will find comparably flimsy "fences" in the Untied States in the
form of signs distributed around the periphery of a property :-
https://seriouspropertymarkers.com/
many nowhere near as substantial as these signs but placed for
visibility.
<snip>

On 28/11/2023 17:53, Robin wrote:

> Motion sensors are most definitely /not/ an acceptable as a means
> activation among the strict orthodox.

That's correct. Nor, is it allowed to tell Alexa to turn the light on.

There's nothing to stop the orthodox leaving a light on overnight if
there's a need. And there's nothing wrong with using a timer.

If, for some reason the stairs are not lit, there's an overriding rule
that says it's okay to switch the light on, rather than risk life and
limb. However, there's no similar overriding rule that says it's okay to
switch the light off again.

> They also reject PIR detectors to
> operate pedestrian lights for road crossings leading to some operating
> every 90 seconds from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday - even in the
> middle of the night.  I speak as a London driver who has sat at them.

My apologies, on behalf of my more orthodox brethren, for the
unnecessary inconvenience caused. That's partly poor traffic light
programming, as there's probably no need to have the lights operating
overnight anyway.

>

GB wrote:

> There's nothing to stop the orthodox leaving a light on overnight if
> there's a need.

I've heard of some lights which have a shutter instead of a switch, so
you can leave it turned on, and then open/close the shutter as required
on the sabbath ...

On 30.11.23 13:34, Andy Burns wrote:
> GB wrote:
>
>> There's nothing to stop the orthodox leaving a light on overnight if
>> there's a need.
>
> I've heard of some lights which have a shutter instead of a switch, so
> you can leave it turned on, and then open/close the shutter as required
> on the sabbath ...

If that is allowed, it raises the prospect of something like dimmer
switch that varies the brightness of a light from imperceptibly dim to
full brightness, without it ever being fully off. It would meet the
technical requirement of not turning something on or off, while
funcionally achieving exactly that (which seems to be the way these
things are being treated).

Robin

On 01/12/2023 08:10, Bob wrote:
> On 30.11.23 13:34, Andy Burns wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>
>>> There's nothing to stop the orthodox leaving a light on overnight if
>>> there's a need.
>>
>> I've heard of some lights which have a shutter instead of a switch, so
>> you can leave it turned on, and then open/close the shutter as
>> required on the sabbath ...
>
> If that is allowed, it raises the prospect of something like dimmer
> switch that varies the brightness of a light from imperceptibly dim to
> full brightness, without it ever being fully off. It would meet the
> technical requirement of not turning something on or off, while
> funcionally achieving exactly that (which seems to be the way these
> things are being treated).
>

If one is reduced to that sort of nit-picking to avoid the consequences
of one's religious beliefs, I can't see that one's dedication to the
religion is that sincere.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 01/12/2023 08:10, Bob wrote:
>> On 30.11.23 13:34, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> GB wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's nothing to stop the orthodox leaving a light on overnight if
>>>> there's a need.
>>>
>>> I've heard of some lights which have a shutter instead of a switch, so
>>> you can leave it turned on, and then open/close the shutter as
>>> required on the sabbath ...
>>
>> If that is allowed, it raises the prospect of something like dimmer
>> switch that varies the brightness of a light from imperceptibly dim to
>> full brightness, without it ever being fully off. It would meet the
>> technical requirement of not turning something on or off, while
>> funcionally achieving exactly that (which seems to be the way these
>> things are being treated).
>>
>
> If one is reduced to that sort of nit-picking to avoid the consequences
> of one's religious beliefs, I can't see that one's dedication to the
> religion is that sincere.
>

It's just an intellectual exercise to demonstrate their total commitment:
devise and memorise a series of complicated, silly rules, then come up with
clever workarounds.

I came across another example at the Golan Heights winery. Wine is a
fundamentally kosher product, but to get the rabbinical seal of approval
(without which no kosher establishment could purchase it), no-one who isn't
a sufficiently orthodox Jew can have any contact with it during the
production process. Most large hotels, and many restaurants, in Israel are
kosher, so that seal of approval is essential.

The winery was owned by a Californian wine maker, who was a liberal Jew,
and therefore not allowed to be physically involved with the production. So
he had to create an inner, glass-walled zone where all the production
happened, and where only Orthodox Jews could step, and an outer zone for
anyone else. Those Orthodox Jewish workers knew nothing about wine
production, so he had to teach them everything, and direct the process,
without entering the production zone himself.