Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site homxa.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!homxa!bds From: bds@homxa.UUCP (B.STERMAN) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Interpretations Message-ID: <463@homxa.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Oct-84 13:48:01 EST Article-I.D.: homxa.463 Posted: Tue Oct 30 13:48:01 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 31-Oct-84 00:46:39 EST References: <1612@ucf-cs.UUCP>, <2658@rochester.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 92 I'd like to introduce myself to the net. My name is Baruch and I just started at Bell Labs. Reading through some of the recent correspondence, I came across some issues and opinions that moved me to add my own thoughts. I specifically address my remarks to Mr. Ben David concerning the question of electricity on Shabbat, but the implications of my words may be of broader scope. While Mr. Ben David's presentation of the electricity issue discusses many approaches, I belive he neglects an important (perhaps the most important) idea. The prohibition against using fire on Shabbat hinges on the definition of 'fire', but that definition must take into account not only the physics of a plasma or the thermodynamic equations of state, but the philosophical implications and intentions of the term as well. The bible singles out the laws of fire from among the various laws of Shabbat. Fire is an amazing thing. Isaac Asimov, in the introduction to one of his books sets up a scenario. Imagine men from Mars landing on Earth and trying to decide which species of life here they should deal with. They try to find some objective criteria by which to judge the life forms in order to determine the most advanced. They suggest first the development of social order, then communication but all these things are shared by many species. Finally they decide that humans are indeed superior because, says Asimov, they are the only species on the planet capable of using fire and harnessing its power. Asimov is in fact retelling the Prometheus story. Fire is what separates us from animals and has long been considered as a gift from the gods. (There is a wonderful Medrash that describes man's discovery of fire in a similar fashion) The idea is not merely mythological. The prohibition against doing work on Shabbat is fundamentally a call to cease from the manipulation of nature and spend some time in passive contemplation of it. Whether or not one accepts the Hazon Ish's association of electricity with fire, the idea that on Shabbat one must retreat for a brief period and stop changing, subduing, conquering the world, is at the very heart of the Shabbat experience. In the times of old the harnessing of nature's power was seen through the use of fire. Today things are different. Nevertheless, be it the energy of a fusion reaction, the beam of a free electron laser, or the altering of a single bit of information in a flip-flop, the idea of fire and the exploitation of nature is present. Certainly, the legal code must work to define it's terms so that it can be consistent and reliable. Even the creation of loopholes is important for the legislation of extreme cases and emergencies. But, the system must be developed not only by those who, as Mr. Ben David says, show "expertise in the physics of electricity", but by those who understand the theology and philosophy of the law as well. Which brings me to my next point. I believe that Mr. Ben David is quite correct in his opposing "mechanical regurgitation of Talmud", and opting instead for a thought out, rational religion, a religion of conscience, if you will. I would like, perhaps not to disagree, but rather to qualify this notion. Judaism has, in a certain way, a most democratic legal system. Anyone, without exception, has the right to enter into the conversarion, debate the issues, and change the law. There is, however, one condition. He/she must become proficient first. How foolish it would be for someone to suggest corrections to the theory of special relativity without first mastering the complicated methods of tensor analysis amd complex clculus. But Baruch, you might say, there is a profound difference. In one case we are dealing with objective equations and in the other with spiritual and moral principals that are in ways worthless if they are not internalized by the individual. This is very true, and so perhaps a distinction must be made. The Talmud at the beginning of Horiot says that if an individual follows the ruling of the court when he knows they are mistaken, he is guilty. (There are many interpretations to this passage, but the simple meaning is valid, at least according to some authorities. I cite Rav Hirschinson, a giant of the last generation who decided, based on this passage, that one who transgresses a law because his conscience allowed no alternative is not culpable.) The Talmud requires though, that the individual must not be an 'Am Haaretz'. This is also only in a case where to do otherwise would be morally wrong. Discipline is still a value. For an individual act of conscience the law recognizes one's right to dissent PRIVATELY. For PUBLIC pronunciation of law, however, a different standard is operative. The individual who seeks to decide law for others must be a 'Bar Hachi'. In general he must be involved with the law, fluent in it, understand its methods as well as its intentions and goals, and have, as the Talmud calls it, 'Heavenly aid'. To decide law for others is a huge responsibility. The Jews are first and foremost a people with a law. That law is the single most important manifestation of our religion, and developing, altering, adding, and updating it, while being absolutely essential to its function and purpose, must not be done in a capricious or flippant manner. Someone who spends a few hours a week studying physics will probably never discover the Unified Field Theorem. Years of preparation and research are required and expected. In my humble opinion, we should treat the Torah with the same dignity. Baruch Sterman (201)949-3821