Sabbath mode • Hacker News Board

Re: Sabbath mode

#151

Post by tovmeod » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 2:15 PM UTC

seszett wrote: post #72

anotherevan wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny. I knew someone was going to have _exactly_ that objection, which is why I purposely why I wrote, "BELIEF or religion" in order to try and be inclusive and not get sidetracked from the main point. Take a large enough group of people in any category, and you're going to find the artists, the lawyers, the zealots, the leaders, the followers, the selfish, the altruistic, the devout, the sticklers, the lackada…

Well, my objection was not on the "belief" part, it was on the "letter of the law" part. Atheism is just not something that has laws that can be interpreted or not. You can't be a "devout atheist" or a "non-practicing atheist", or practice parts of atheism but not others, it makes absolutely no sense. Atheism is by definition a binary property. If you wanted to list different categories including non-religious ones,…

practicing and non-practicing are concepts specific to christian cultures and not a general concept applied to all beliefs

Re: Sabbath mode

#152

Post by reuven » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 2:17 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #144

reuven wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a US phone number via Skype, simply because so many of my American clients had no idea how to call internationally. Similarly, for many of my US clients, I provide them with their first-ever opportunity to send a letter (i.e., my check) via international mail.

I'm kind of curious why it makes sense to get a US number to accommodate clients who can't (?!) make international calls, but not to get a mail forwarding service with a US address.

I receive, at absolute most, 2-3 US checks in the mail each month. It's not worth paying for such a mail-forwarding service, when I can just tell people, "Go to the post office, ask for a stamp to Israel, and hand it to the postal clerk."

Plus, the US number comes with free unlimited calling to the US, so I can call my clients (and family, to be honest) as much as I want.

Re: Sabbath mode

#153

Post by reuven » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 2:47 PM UTC

golergka wrote: post #139

reuven wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very reasonable point to make. That said, I think the fundamental question here is whether such rule-breaking is endorsed by centuries of priests, or if it's just something people do. In Judaism, the rabbis have codified such rule-bending for at least 2,000 years. And we have also been debating whether it's acceptable for as long. :-)_

> rule-breaking > rule-bending These are different.

I think that the difference is in the eye of the beholder.

Case in point: When the Conservative movement announced a few years ago that homosexuality is OK, and that it's even fine to have same-sex weddings, they needed to confront the fact that Leviticus explicitly outlaws homosexual relations.

The Conservative movement gave all sorts of explanations, and basically said they were bending the rules. Their rabbinical schools currently accept gay and lesbian students.

The Orthodox (stricter) world largely said that they had broken the law beyond all recognition, and that this demonstrated that the Conservative movement doesn't take Jewish law seriously.

Many rule-bending aspects of Jewish law, even when approved by top rabbis, have been called rule-breaking by opponents.

Re: Sabbath mode

#154

Post by ndrscr » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 2:49 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #145

bitwize wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I always joke with them that Jews are the first hackers, There's a reason why ethnic Jews tend to concentrate very strongly in hackerdom. They were the first wiki editors as well -- consider the millennia of rabbinical commentary attached to the Talmud.

> consider the millennia of rabbinical commentary attached to the Talmud How does this differentiate Jews from any other culture with writing?

Consider the Odyssey, a classic example of a Greek text.

The Odyssey was codified and passed down through generations in Greece. People write about the Odyssey, but almost no one has writted linear commentaries for it.

Lets compare that to the Talmud. The Mishnah is the core of the Talmud, and it is a collection of oral law written down (in about 200 C.E.) by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Like the Odyssey, it is unchanged and has been transmitted through the generations.

However, its story does not end there. The next generation of Rabbis writes the Gemara. The Gemara is a collections of more oral law from the generation of the Mishnaic Rabbis, along with debate about the laws in the Mishnah, trying to find proofs for laws, trying to deal with problematic laws, clarify vague laws, and so on. The Mishnah and the Gemara make up the Talmud. (Note that there are actually two versions of the Talmud, the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. They have the same Mishnah but the Gemara is different. The Babylonian Talmud is more complete and therefore more widely studied).

Skipping forward a few years, the Rabbis of the middle ages start to comment on the Talmud. Rashi commented on the entire (Babylonian) Talmud, and so did the Rabbis of his grandchildrens' generation. Meanwhile, other Rabbis, such as Maimonadies (I'm sure I spelled that wrong), were trying to extract the laws from the Talmud (a daunting task because not all discussions were resolved). Even very recently, Rabbi Steinsaltz wrote his commentary on the entire Talmud. The cycle of commentary never ends.

Re: Sabbath mode

#155

Post by ndrscr » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 3:01 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #112

freehunter wrote: post #3

Clever hack, but if you're coming up with ways to circumvent your religion's practices, are you really still practicing your religion?

The opposite happens too. Look at where the rule against mixing milk and meat comes from. Such an enormous extrapolation from an ultra-specific line.

Just as a sidenote, the Rabbis determine that a fetal calf does not count as meat, so one could actually cook a calf in its mother's milk, according to Jewish law.

Re: Sabbath mode

#156

Post by trauring » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 3:08 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #95

This is what killed the 7 children in Brooklyn yesterday

No, that was a hot plate that was left on. If they had used a Sabbath Mode oven, there would not have been a fire.

Re: Sabbath mode

#157

Post by shliachtx » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 5:20 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #122

ars wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works in Judaism. The full set of laws were given to Moses. In the Torah is only a hint to the laws, that's why the line looks so unspecific to you. It's just a reminder to check the oral tradition for the details.

Do you have something I can read with more information on this? I've searched in the past and only found arguments based on the line, not saying it actually existed in oral tradition.

See http://chabad.org/812102

Re: Sabbath mode

#158

Post by golergka » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

reuven wrote: post #153

golergka wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rule-breaking > rule-bending These are different.

I think that the difference is in the eye of the beholder. Case in point: When the Conservative movement announced a few years ago that homosexuality is OK, and that it's even fine to have same-sex weddings, they needed to confront the fact that Leviticus explicitly outlaws homosexual relations. The Conservative movement gave all sorts of explanations, and basically said they were bending the rules. Their rabbinical…

Everything is in the eyes of the beholder — at least, in law (any kind). That's why opponents are called opponents, because they don't see things as you do.

Re: Sabbath mode

#159

Post by Dylan16807 » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 9:03 PM UTC

shliachtx wrote: post #157

Dylan16807 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have something I can read with more information on this? I've searched in the past and only found arguments based on the line, not saying it actually existed in oral tradition.

See http://chabad.org/812102

Let me be more clear with my question, since that's just information on the oral tradition in general.

I am looking for a source that the specific rule against putting meat and milk together was given to Moses, or that it's a direct implication of the written Torah.

As far as I have understood it, it's a ruling that the rabbis made once upon a time, and it has since become part of the oral tradition, but it was not originally a rule. This would imply that it is not unimpeachable. For example, you could argue against the two hour buffer zone in your link with modern omnipresent accurate clocks[0].

[0] Yes, time zones, I know, let's not actually argue that point.

Re: Sabbath mode

#160

Post by shliachtx » Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 9:27 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #159

shliachtx wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See http://chabad.org/812102

Let me be more clear with my question, since that's just information on the oral tradition in general. I am looking for a source that the specific rule against putting meat and milk together was given to Moses, or that it's a direct implication of the written Torah. As far as I have understood it, it's a ruling that the rabbis made once upon a time, and it has since become part of the oral tradition, but it was not o…

Is this what you're referring to?

You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk. (Exodus 34:26)[0]

The Talmud goes into detail as to how to extrapolate all meat in all milk, but it is considered a biblical prohibition, not rabbinical.

[0] http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9895#v=26