|
Updated: 2018.07.18
To foster long-term social order, the law must deliver timely justice to its public, continually earning the trust of its subjects. To do that, the law must also be engendered in clearly defined principles. No reasonable person questions "You may not steal."
More controversial are: "You must wear a kip•âhꞋ", "your tᵊphil•inꞋ must be all-white", "running non-porous dishware through a dishwasher doesn't enable dishware previously used for bâ•sârꞋ to be used for khâ•lâvꞋ or vice-versa" and "a dishwasher used for khâ•lâvꞋ dishware cannot be used for bâ•sârꞋ dishware, or vice-versa, unless it's a specified dishwasher, specified settings are used and an empty, cleaning wash, is performed in-between".
On the other hand, while properly keeping Sha•bâtꞋ is at the top of our priorities: "You may not walk through an area where there is an invisible motion detector on Sha•bâtꞋ," "You may not push a baby stroller on a wet sidewalk on Sha•bâtꞋ" or "You may not open an umbrella on Sha•bâtꞋ", by contrast, are just plain, off-the-rails, loony tunes.
Where there have been centuries of intervening case law, reverting back to the original principle for each subsequent case would prolong adjudication interminably, defeating just remedy for victims. Relying on previously decided case law is judicious – as long as the chain of reasoning is reviewable for every case at every level – all the way back to the initial principle.
To filter out squirrelly decisions of intervening centuries, however, requires subjecting any contemporary ruling to review of case law all the way back to the original principle, in order to ensure that the current ruling has not strayed from the original principle upon which it is being based – either by unfounded generalization, assumption, likening, parallel, similarity, etc. Relative to allegations of theft of intellectual property, is that stealing? This logic could be proven correct in a computer. Relative to walking in front of a motion detector, is that kindling a fire? Is walking in front of a motion detector creating anything? Relative to pushing the baby stroller, is that writing? Relative to the umbrella, is that pitching a tent?
The world keeps getting more complicated, more technologically advanced. At the deeper, base principle, level: is fire, per se, îÀìÈàëÈä (or is îÀìÈàëÈä limited to kindling, or gathering kindling)? Are all modern kinds of writing included in îÀìÈàëÈä? (What about disability-access, mind-controlled computer-assisted writing? Would speaking on Sha•bâtꞋ then be prohibited for people like Stephen Hawking?) Is simply letting-go of a modern pop-open tent îÀìÈàëÈä?
While wiping away a plethora of Dark Ages goofiness is unavoidable to restore justice to Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ, carelessly wiping away all intervening rulings back to, say, Har Sin•aiꞋ, or even to Ta•lᵊmudꞋ, would inescapably invalidate, and throw into question, the current status of virtually everything Judaic.
The only solution to restoring Tzᵊdâq•âhꞋ to Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ is to make every future case reviewable by mathematical-logic – a point the anti-mysticism scientist, Ram•ba"mꞋ, would have applauded, not simply vacated wholesale, all the way back to the original principles at Har Sin•aiꞋ. In this way, only where adjudication has been corrupted by invalid reasoning can anything be changed. That ensures that all valid Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ remains valid!
Ergo, valid reasoning then remains valid and in place and the entire question reduces to: At what points do the 7 Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ principles of RibꞋi Hi•leilꞋ fall short of mathematical-logic? These shortcomings relative to mathematical logic are the only points that then qualify to be upgraded, restoring cascading faithfulness to the original principles without jeopardizing even one valid ruling at any time in history.
The English term, "work", is not adequate to explain what work is required on Sha•bâtꞋ as contrasted against what work is prohibited on Sha•bâtꞋ.
Some types of òÂáåÉãÈä are explicitly commanded by Tor•âhꞋ on Sha•bâtꞋ. Ta•na"khꞋ defines Sha•bâtꞋ as a day in which you shall have a convocation ÷ÉãÆùÑ (necessarily expending òÂáåÉãÈä) but not do any îÀìÈàëÈä (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 23.3). The principle of pi•quꞋakh nëphꞋësh, requiring whatever work, including îÀìÈàëÈä, is essential to preservation of life and health (epitomizing first-responders and emergency services, military and police vigilance and the like), is anchored in logically consistent arguments and universally accepted by the rabbis.
Only the îÀìÈàëÈä subset constitutes òÂáåÉãÈä prohibited on Sha•bâtꞋ. Therefore, it is essential, and the aforementioned Biblical standard requires, that we discern with extreme care to apply the Biblical standard (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 10.10; Yᵊkhë•zᵊq•eilꞋ 44.23) to properly distinguish: ÷ÉãÆùÑ from çÉì, the superset that contains (subsumes) the set of îÀìÈàëÈä.
In the modern era, any corrections we might make based on improved logic are limited to processing authentic historical facts; ensuring that we're dealing with reality, not misconceptions based on mere assumptions or beliefs. Facts must be just that; logically established from the earliest extant mss., in their original languages and within the contemporary context and culture in order for logic to process reality – rather than amplify false premises ex falso quodlibet.
The earliest 7 äÇîÄÌãÌåÉú were set forth by RibꞋi Hi•leilꞋ; 7 rules describing the best understanding of logic of his time. And, most of the time, they're correct.
Striving for the best logic he knew, RibꞋi Hi•leilꞋ would likely be the first to insist on upgrading to the most precise and reliable logic available today: mathematical logic; something Ram•ba"mꞋ, too, heartily endorsed.
Most, perhaps 99%, of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ remains unchanged by the logical definition. The proof, or confirmation, of the superiority of defining principles (as opposed to generalizing a list of named anecdotal examples) is described in the contrast between
the logical-scientific Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ definition in the real world reflecting the Laws of the Creator-Singularity and, correspondingly, the Principles conveyed in His "Life's Instruction (Hebrew: úÌåÉøÈä) Manual", with mathematical precision and accuracy today and into the future, versus
the 5th century C.E. Hellenized Talmudic-rabbinic opinion of the number of trades involved in a Bronze Age construction project a millennium and a half earlier – a tradition that has, after centuries of questionable parallels, unfounded generalizations, baseless assumptions and the like, resulted in an unmanageable plethora of internal-contradictions, cognitive dissonance and utter chaos leading to innumerable schisms – the opposite of Divine Order.
In addition to the frequent fallacious premises (leading to ex falso quodlibet fallacious conclusions) resulting from improper generalization – or, worse, from assumptions, the rabbis depend upon a Named Peril kind of reasoning, citing 39 named anecdotal examples from which they generalize. It's just foolish to think that everything in the modern world can be generalized from 39 Bronze Age anecdotal examples. What's needed is a comprehensive methodology. This is most easily explained using insurance policies as an example.
Suppose a self-automated robot goes berserk rogue and takes a disliking to your house, ripping off the roof and smashing your car.
You go to your insurance policy and find that you have a Named-Peril policy. You're covered for damage caused by:
Sorry pal, there is no "rogue robot" listed among the named perils covered in your policy. Your insurance won't pay.
Now suppose that same scenario. But this time you go to your insurance policy and read that you're covered for "All Risks" except for:
This time, a rogue robot is not listed among the exceptions so you're covered. 
No matter how hard you try, you have no chance of complying with Tor•âhꞋ unless the type(s) of a•vod•âhꞋ that become a peril (prohibited) on Shab•âtꞋ are defined crystal-clear and correct – not simplistically generalized and sloppily assumed goofiness – in all cases: past, present and future.
That dictates the need for a comprehensive, not Named-Peril, definition that is clear and straightforward, always comporting with the Laws of é‑‑ä that regulate the universe; from the original paradigm through all future unforeseeable permutations. You cannot afford to find out in the next life that you've been desecrating Shab•âtꞋ because Ultra-Orthodox (or even Orthodox) rabbis told you superstitious fables and you were too lazy to check the facts.
The rabbinic, Named-Peril, approach of endlessly adding and patching a list of named acts forbidden on Sha•bâtꞋ never has, and never can, provide a reliable and correct definition. Proper Biblical definitions must comport with the His Laws of the universe. Think if the laws of the universe were remolded to comport with Dark Ages rabbinical definitions.
In contrast to rival religions, the rabbis started with the proper paradigm to analyze work relative to the types prohibited on Sha•bâtꞋ: namely, the types of òÂáåÉãÈä involved in building the ŌꞋhël Mō•eidꞋ / Mi•shᵊkânꞋ that were prohibited on Sha•bâtꞋ. Thus, òÂáåÉãÈä cannot be simplistically justified on Sha•bâtꞋ based solely on whether it superficially seems to be for incorporeal òåÉìÈí åÈòÅã or, alternately, for a corporeal worldly goal. The rabbis unanimously assumed (a logical fallacy) that the tasks involved in building the ŌꞋhël Mō•eidꞋ / Mi•shᵊkânꞋ but were prohibited on Sha•bâtꞋ were òÂáåÉãÈä qâ•doshꞋ. That probably seemed straightforward and axiomatic. But there were other commonalities shared by all of these tasks that the rabbis failed to notice. The construction people were all working for an employer, all working for an income, all working in their career, and all working in the pursuit of building something physical, in this world – all factors making the types of construction work were this-worldly and prohibited on Sha•bâtꞋ, not incorporeal-Realm work that is permitted on Sha•bâtꞋ. Plus, it turns out, the Creator-Singularity of the universe isn't physical and doesn't live in a physical house.
Dependent upon a displacement mythology Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ that traces back to Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Hellenism, uneducated and incompetent Ultra-Orthodox (and some Orthodox) rabbis hopelessly mired in European Dark Ages mysticism still impose a simplistic and inadequate Named-Peril approach where a comprehensive, scientifically logical, definition, avoiding baseless assumptions or generalizations, has always been the sine qua non to properly define both the original paradigm and all future permutations.
The rabbinic Named-Perils of îÀìÈàëÈä, setting forth 39 named Shab•âtꞋ perils, is based, firstly, on the non sequitur of the adjacency of the Scriptural passages (Shᵊm•otꞋ 31.1-11) describing work on the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ being immediately followed by the prohibition against doing îÀìÈàëÈä on Shab•âtꞋ. From this non sequitur, the rabbis of Tal•mudꞋ generalized 39 categories of labor from an enumeration of recorded activities (assuming it was exhaustive, though it certainly was not) related to the building of the Bronze Age, B.C.E. 1624, Mi•shᵊkânꞋ; activities which, of course, ceased on Shab•âtꞋ (Ma•sëkꞋët Sha•bâtꞋ 7b) . "Therefore" (they simplistically generalized ex falso quodlibet), they assumed should define all activity forbidden on Shab•âtꞋ:
| 1. Carrying | 8. Washing | 15. Planting | 22. Grinding | 29. Weaving | 36. Skinning |
| 2. Burning | 9. Sewing | 16. Reaping | 23. Kneading | 30. Unraveling | 37. Tanning |
| 3. Extinguishing | 10. Tearing | 17. Harvesting | 24. Combing | 31. Building | 38. Smoothing |
| 4. Finishing | 11. Knotting | 18. Threshing | 25. Spinning | 32. Demolishing | 39. Marking |
| 5. Writing | 12. Untying | 19. Winnowing | 26. Dyeing | 33. Trapping | |
| 6. Erasing | 13. Shaping | 20. Selecting | 27. Sewing | 34. Shearing | |
| 7. Cooking | 14. Plowing | 21. Sifting | 28. Warping | 35. Slaughtering |
For any of these 39 categories to be valid basis to forbid all of the category on Sha•bâtꞋ requires that somebody prove that! No one ever even attempted that with any of the 39 categories!! In fact, it's a simple matter to disprove all of the 39 categories aren't reliable in all cases simply by showing one anomaly in any one of them! The rabbis ignorantly and simplistically assumed and fabricated the 39 categories based on misrepresenting the facts!!! Then they subsequently have built mountains of traditions based on these threads suspended from nothing but naked, ex falso quodlibet, assumptions. The Bronze Age construction workers didn't drag anything? Push anything? Lift anything? Lifting is (fallaciously) supposedly subsumed in carrying. Yet, if lifting is prohibited work on Sha•bâtꞋ, then lifting a fork, or even you eyelid, profanes Sha•bâtꞋ.
A logical methodology requires finding the underlying principle(s) common to all of these – not only the 39 the rabbis count but all of the others they've later had to mangle to fit somewhere and patch in – not to mention all future eventualities. There needs to be a legal principle of äÈòåÉìÈí äÄùÑÀúÌÇðÌÈä (mundus mutatus).
Examples:
Orthodox rabbis have, by the pretext of calling a bit of prepositioned food "a new home" (from which to measure), multiple times, reformed and extended the maximal length of a "Sha•bâtꞋ Walk"; from its original length of about 1 km to several km. But the rabbinic subterfuge of calling a bit of food a new abode is silly and self-indulgent fraud. In the time of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, this limit was defined by the distance between Har ha-BaꞋyit and Har ha-Zeit•imꞋ (because of the topography, about 5 km or 3 mi). On the other hand, if we approach the question from the standpoint of the amount of Sha•bâtꞋ day taken up by travel, then äÈòåÉìÈí äÄùÑÀúÌÇðÌÈä (mundus mutatus). A family, on donkey or foot, first descending from Har ha-BaꞋyit into NaꞋkhal Qi•dᵊrōnꞋ and then ascending Har ha-Zeit•imꞋ at a leisurely pace required a family perhaps 2-3 hours. Representing the maximum portion of Sha•bâtꞋ allowed to be taken up by travel in hours is logically more cogent. Today, a family can get in their car and travel 100 miles to see a relative in that same 2-3 hours; and by air… äÈòåÉìÈí äÄùÑÀúÌÇðÌÈä (mundus mutatus).
Travel by car isn't prohibited on Sha•bâtꞋ since the prohibition was based on the ex falso quodlibet that explosion is fire. The science definition distinguishes them. äÈòåÉìÈí äÄùÑÀúÌÇðÌÈä (mundus mutatus).
Even fire, per se, wasn't prohibited, only the mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ required by ancient methods of building a fire was prohibited. Contrary to the English translations, the man executed by Mōsh•ëhꞋ never actually lit the fire!
The same is true of electricity; which is not fire either.
We're no longer in the Bronze Age, we don't transport by ox cart. Soon, cars, buses, trains and aircraft will operate autonomously; without drivers having to work. We already have autonomous food dispensers that operate by credit card. äÈòåÉìÈí äÄùÑÀúÌÇðÌÈä (mundus mutatus). Tōr•âhꞋ fits all situations for all times. It's anti-science, willfully illiterate rabbis who don't.
Let Mi = mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ category i and Pð = principle ð. Then
For Mi : i = 1 → ∞, we must find underlying principle(s) such that each Pà → ú substantiates every Mi.
In other words, (a.) what is prohibited can only be found in the underlying principle(s) shared by every one of the original Scriptural examples, (b.) to be valid, those principles must always apply without exception and (c.) those principles cannot be generalized or assumed to all instances of any category of work.
While space doesn't allow going through the whole process of any of these proofs or disproofs here, they are obvious, not complex, to those familiar with them and we can immediately see some of these shared principles. In every case, P1, the worker was doing work under the authority of a human director, P2, the worker received income, P3, the worker was working in his or her income-producing craft or trade or profession, etc. While there may be additional principles missed in this brief, even these three begins to give us an overall perspective constraining the correct definition of mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ.
Such comprehensive principles, not 39 named categories of work, combine to comprise the standard by which mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ is defined. When the inevitable new situations and questions arise, one must revert back to these principles, and search if there are any additional shared principles (going back to the Scriptural account, not the rabbinic list), Pi-j, to define new technologies and situations.
A lot of fake – philosophy, humanities and European Dark Ages rabbinic – "logic," which doesn't stand up to mathematical computer confirmation or scientific method, is being peddled by incompetent arts-degreed professors and rabbis these days. As one humanities moron put it, "Logic is unreliable. According to logic, one can say 'The sun is yellow. Therefore, the sun is made of butter.'" Ah, no; that's not logic. According to logic, that is non sequitur – arts-degree and Dark Ages rabbinic caliber, fake "logic".
Logic checks out correctly on a computer. If it doesn't check correctly on a computer, then it's a fallacy and the best one can say for an extra-logical supposition is that, if backed by substantive and compelling statistics, one may establish a probability of its likelihood.
Reasoning based on a false premise is a logical fallacy called ex falso quodlibet. E.g., "If Hillary were president, then…" Often, this is compounded by nakedly assuming the false premise, "Since electricity is fire, then…" Further creatively "interpreting" (see Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ) the false premise grows a tree of fallacies upon fallacies; e.g., fallaciously interpreting Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 17.11, "Scripture demands that you obey 'the rabbis', therefore…" (ex falso quodlibet "Ultra-Orthodox rabbis, therefore, have the authority to override Ta•na"khꞋ").
Since the premise is false, any hypothetical "could" be. Rabbis argue the false premise that they pre-existed themselves, therefore (ex falso quodlibet), Scripture meant rabbis! Muslims argue that Islam pre-existed themselves. Therefore (ex falso quodlibet), Scripture meant the imams. Christians argue that the Church pre-existed themselves. Ergo (ex falso quodlibet), Scripture meant Church founders or the pope. Only when hard logic is imposed must one confront reality. Then (see Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ), only one correct interpretation stands correct.
Hypotheticals are logical fallacies ("fake news") that also consume agenda-driven tabloids and gossip-columnists masquerading as media and journalists. Thus, we suffer endless tsunamis of brainless political and religious (including rabbinic) argumentation raging without end because all western education systems have forsaken the teaching of mathematically precise logic, which derive from the laws of the universe, which, in turn, were Authored and Empowered by the Creator-Singularity, é‑‑ä; Principles echoed in His Tor•âhꞋ – when understood properly!
The most frequent examples of ex falso quodlibet result either from naked assumption or from statistically near-naked generalization. Some of the most conspicuous examples form the basis of extensive rabbinic argumentation. The bulk of rabbinic strayings from Tor•âhꞋ are the product of adopting false premises based on invalid generalizations. To be at all useful, a generalization (technically, inductive logic) must be statistically probable (>50%) at the very least. Conclusions based on generalizations are probabilities, neither established facts nor established truths.
Picking up, carrying, opening and studying a SeiphꞋër Tor•âhꞋ, and other efforts in direct pursuit of spiritual goals,, satisfy the definition of òÂáåÉãÈä, but not îÀìÈàëÈä; work that was never intended to be prohibited on Sha•bâtꞋ. Picking up, carrying, opening and studying a business report, on the other hand, even if it's smaller and lighter in weight or virtual, is òÂáåÉãÈä that is îÀìÈàëÈä and, therefore, is prohibited on Sha•bâtꞋ!
A priori, picking up, carrying, opening and studying cannot be the determinants. Why, for what purpose, has always been the original and pristine, definitive Tor•âhꞋ principle.
Yet, the most onerous strayings from the pristine Tor•âhꞋ as manifested at Har Sin•aiꞋ are the products of innumerable tangled webs of Dark Ages rabbinic casuistry, speculated by Europeans centuries after the fact, from false premises straight out of the Stone Age – assumed and generalized from Biblical descriptions that include ox carts and donkey-pulled threshing sleds to ox-turned grinding stones. From those Stone Age generalizations, and often pure speculations – false premises, European Dark Ages and Medieval rabbis centuries out of touch with the Middle East then hung their own mountains of ex falso quodlibet fantastical misconceptions (like electricity being a form of fire) to dig themselves ever deeper in their strayings. The result is that the strictest of Ultra-Orthodox Jews have, with the most earnest fanaticism, become the most blatant desecrators of Sha•bâtꞋ! Restoration of the pristine, original implications requires thorough and far-reaching investigation to rescue the authentic Principles compiled by Mōsh•ëhꞋ Pᵊqid•einꞋu.
Recognizing the need to strengthen their non sequitur and ex falso quodlibet argument, the rabbis cited bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 2.1-3 noting that é‑‑ä "ceased" from îÀìÈàëÈä of "creating." Hence, the rabbis argued, since é‑‑ä "ceased" both from "creating" and îÀìÈàëÈä on Shab•âtꞋ, therefore (non sequitur), îÀìÈàëÈä is equivalent to "creating." Since é‑‑ä created both Yᵊhud•imꞋ and goy•imꞋ simultaneously, then, according to that quack logic, they, too, must be equivalent? 
Consequently, whereas the rabbis originally prohibited electricity because they thought it was fire, now, presto change-o and a few grams of handwavium, they argue that changing a flow of electrons (electric current) is an act of "creation." It's already absurd that rabbis hold that elevators and card-key (electronic) locks in hotels are â•surꞋ on Shab•âtꞋ. Are rabbis now forbidding turning on certain water taps (if they might cause a pump to switch on? Don't even think about using an electric water heater! By this standard, walking across a rug (perhaps "creating" static and a spark), or through an electrical field (Disturbing the magnetic field – where is there not an electrical field these days? Just because one doesn't see it? What you don't see doesn't count? 
. By such ridiculous standards even digesting food (chemical mixing, electrical impulses), moving a muscle or thinking becomes â•surꞋ on Shab•âtꞋ. That's why the more knowledge mankind acquires, the more strict ultras must always become; and it's never enough! The fact is, however, that man merely rearranges. No man has ever created anything! Yet, these are the only pillars upon which rabbinic arguments rest.
Notice the Scriptural basis for prohibiting "fire" (bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ 15.32-36): the transgressor of Tor•âhꞋ never even kindled or ignited a fire! He was not executed for lighting a fire! Go learn to make a fire by gathering kindling and rubbing two sticks. Then you can relate to the îÀìÈàëÈä involved. All of the preparations and stick-rubbing had to be done before Sha•bâtꞋ. îÀìÈàëÈä of making a fire is prohibited, not some superstitious and supernatural magical "creation" involved in the ignition of fire. The Biblical transgressor was executed for the îÀìÈàëÈä crime of gathering kindling – îÀìÈàëÈä that should have been completed before Shab•âtꞋ! There isn't even a quack-logic basis for rabbinic arguments about "creating" since the transgressor never even lit the fire! 
Even in America, electricity wasn't around until my parents' generation. My mother could remember, and recounted to me, when, as a girl, her Pine Castle suburb of Orlando was first hooked up to electricity! Most other parts of the world lagged behind America. Many parts still don't have electricity.
Mōsh•ëhꞋ Pᵊqid•einꞋu had no electricity wired up in his suk•âhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ, nor a generator out back. ALL rabbinic rulings regarding electricity are 20th century C.E. REFORMS!!! And these science-illiterate rabbis thought electricity was a type of fire – the false premise precedent upon which all of their subsequent "poskim" have been, ex falso quodlibet, based!!! So, the rabbis' prohibition of electricity on Sha•bâtꞋ was ex falso quodlibet from the get-go. Rabbinic legalistic methodology, idolizing infallible immutable precedents for all time, then locks-in the multiplication of that fatal flaw for all time. Rabbinic methodology requires that rabbis may only build subsequent and future "poskim" exclusively on that ex falso quodlibet precedent – for all time. Ergo, ALL subsequent arguments must also be built on that same ex falso quodlibet "poskim". Every error is perpetuated and repeatedly multiplied for all time.
Later, when science-illiterate Ultra-Orthodox rabbis can no longer hide the fact that electricity is NOT fire, rather than admit their error and correct their basic premise, they keep dreaming up new patches to patch up their previous errors:
Turning on a switch is an act of creation. Seriously? These rabbis blaspheme: only é‑‑ä creates anything!)
Using electricity causes other people to do more work. First of all, that's not true. For national defense, etc. production of electricity is classified as one of the activities in the category of pi•quꞋakh nëphꞋësh. Secondly, the rabbis' solution is to run elevators continuously on Sha•bâtꞋ so that people can get on and off without having to push a button ("creating" electricity ). So that necessitates MORE work to produce electricity. The same is true of switching off the light in a refrigerator on Sha•bâtꞋ. If you open the door to the frig, you allow heat to enter the frig setting off a chain reaction that turns on a thermostat switch. The rabbis avoid one indirect action that can be seen by substituting just another indirect action thatt cannot be seen. The only valid rule here is if you can't see it you can pretend it doesn't exist.
The idea of substituting a motion sensor instead of a button disrupts a flow of photon particles to operate a switch. But merely making something too small to be noticed, without the ability to define a cut-off point, doesn't change it's basic definition. Anyone disrupting the beam of photon particles has accomplished work! Pushing a button is merely easier to see. Pushing the work into the unseen world was easier for rabbis to kick the can down the road and avoid their initial false premise that electricity is fire.
The intelligent and logical analyst of Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ must reorient his or her thinking away from "magic" and superstition associated with fire (or electricity) and recognize that the transgression was the doing of îÀìÈàëÈä – actual worldly-oriented, profane work – on Shab•âtꞋ. Most likely, the "lighting" of the fire would have been what is today called "transferring fire," from a next-door neighbor's fire. It's unlikely that everyone preferred to spend a half-hour rubbing sticks or hitting flint rocks together. Tday's automatic switches and matches would not qualify as îÀìÈàëÈä. The problem is continuing belief in European Dark Ages superstitious "magic" and incantations (the perfect recitation of ritual chants).
In the 20th century CE, when electricity was being connected into cities and homes, in the same way the Church had previously done scientifically illiterate rabbis decreed that it was a type of fire and prohibited turning on a switch on Sha•bâtꞋ as "kindling a fire."
When that became impossible to defend, the rabbis retreated to an argument that operating a switch, altering the current, was prohibited on Sha•bâtꞋ as an act of "creation" (from which é‑‑ä rested on Sha•bâtꞋ). Ignoring that no human has ever created anything physical, they rely on imposed Dark Ages beliefs to continue even today to dangled more and more rabbinic mountains from, and silly handwavium "fixes" to that conspicuously fallacious thread: e.g., one shouldn't push an elevator button – so the "fix" is to run the elevator constantly on Sha•bâtꞋ so that more work is required from workers at the electric plant? The extra weight requiring greater work by the elevator motors, consuming increased electricity, isn't noticed by the mushrooms; so that's ok? Like Ultra-Orthodox Jews brag that they don't eat bugs because they visually inspect their greens, what you don't see doesn't count? What you don't see often does hurt you! This rabbinic sinkhole of strayings from the pristine principles of Tor•âhꞋ, relying on what their mushrooms deny or don't see, is doomed to forever continue growing, forcing followers to increasingly deny reality, until the sinkhole collapses under them.
If altering the flow of electrons in an electrical current by shutting off or turning on an electrical switch is prohibited work of "creating" on Sha•bâtꞋ then altering the flow of the the state of energy of atoms by opening a refrigerator door, which causes the thermostat to alter the flow of electrons, is likewise prohibited "creating". Keeping the frig light off so you don't see the change is nothing more than handwavium; a cheap deception. Even your heartbeat and your thinking constantly alters the flow of electrons. No matter how many patches that rabbis apply, that will never be the valid distinction between òÂáåÉãÈä that is ÷ÉãÆùÑ vs îÀìÈàëÈä.
Rulings to "fix" every such endless instance grow endlessly – an endless source of income for greedy (primarily Ultra-Orthodox these days) rabbis, but an unavoidable fountain of endless grief and ever-tighter (and ever more far-fetched, grotesque and sillier) constrictions for observant Jews – never able to satisfy impossibly entangled conflicting definitions and requirements; condemning the people to perpetual failure and unfulfillment – always in need of an Ultra-Orthodox rabbi to apply the handwavium, "sorting it out" for them.
Writing a religious item to sell is mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ. Extending the prohibition beyond mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ illogically generalizes. Writing to make notes for personal or family study and learning of Tor•âhꞋ is not the logical definition of mᵊlâkh•âhꞋ.
One may not push a child's stroller on a wet sidewalk on Shab•âtꞋ – since a wheel, after going through a wet spot, might possibly make a wet track forming a letter that could resemble a é or a å or a ï – symbols that increasingly Ultra-Orthodox rabbis superstitiously believe have magical supernatural properties and powers that might be unleashed, thus violating the prohibition against writing on Shab•âtꞋ. That's off-the-rails fanatic Hellenism of prohibited European Dark Ages incantations and wizardry. Prohibiting wheeling a baby stroller after a rain on Sha•bâtꞋ because it might go though a small wet spot on a sidewalk and then makes a wet mark on the dry part of the sidewalk
It's less what you do than why you are doing.
Rabbinic thinking based on ox carts and mistaking electricity for fire – has proven inextricably mired in creating ever more foolish bridges to gloss over their fundamental Dark Ages and European superstitions.
RibꞋi Hi•leilꞋ, and the predominance of his successors, did admirably; the best they knew. Nevertheless, interpretations drawn from distinctions in the Bronze Age of ox carts are the weakness in rabbinic premises, which have led, over the centuries, to a plethora of rabbinic ex falso quodlibet fallacies. Add to this later eye-rolling European Dark Ages rabbinic mysticism, condemned by Ram•ba"mꞋ, and it becomes clear how so much of today's rabbinic thinking has strayed from legitimate – mathematically-logical and real-world – Tor•âhꞋ.
While the principles are dependable – eternal and unchanging, specific distinctions in the Bronze Age of ox carts are not adequate to apply in our modern technological era; and, in fact, have resulted in rabbinic rules, undeservingly labeled "halacha," that endlessly and intractably contradict Tor•âhꞋ.
Falling short of logical precision, post-Biblical rabbinic Mi•dᵊrâshꞋ and ôÌÇøùÑÈðåÌú that fall short of logical precision have frequently resulted in strayings that contradict Ta•na"khꞋ and, more than a few times, presume to override,
Tor•âhꞋ.
A•sërꞋët ha-Dᵊvâr•imꞋ deleted from tᵊphil•inꞋ and mᵊzuz•ōtꞋ
Except for ko•han•imꞋ, or perhaps a king, wearing a turban, most Biblical-era depictions identified as Jews show them to be bare-headed. However, this is often because foreigners depicted them having been conquered, thus stripped of weapons and national outer clothing, including tzitz•itꞋ and headdress. Other depictions, such as at Karnak, depict Israelis before being stripped: wearing tzitz•itꞋ, tō•tëphꞋët and (customary, though not visible under their mi•gᵊba•atꞋ) kip•âhꞋ. The kip•âhꞋ became a point of unresolved controversy and dispute in Talmudic times. Before that, head coverings were mostly mentioned in association with mourning – probably the predominant factor leading to today's extra-Biblical practices; e.g., inter alia, wearing a tō•tëphꞋët and kip•âhꞋ with no mi•gᵊba•atꞋ (). (Think of an Arab wearing his skullcap and black headdress cord without the scarf in-between! Very European! ) And then, compounding their rabbinic straying by prohibiting the tō•tëphꞋët on Sha•bâtꞋ as something being carried ()! (There is a crucial difference between interpretation and addition; see Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 4.1-2.)
TᵊkheilꞋët – In Talmudic times, some swindlers were counterfeiting pᵊtilꞋ tᵊkheilꞋët produced from the dye of the Murex trunculus with cheap dye from the indigo plant and then selling the cheap product, which was virtually indistinguishable from the expensive product, as the expensive product, cheating customers. Understandably, the Talmudic rabbis rightly condemned the swindling. More recent rabbis of European origin are ignorant that, scholars assert, most people in Biblical times used the product produced from the indigo dye. Only the wealthy could afford the expensive product produced from the Murex trunculus. Consequently, the modern rabbis misunderstand the Talmudic condemnation of deceiving and cheating customers, misinterpreting it as a broad ban on indigo dye – which is an impossible interpretation, since the non-wealthy people continued to use the indigo dye product without objection from the Talmudic rabbis. Obedience is always measured by doing one's utmost, not disobedience because perfection is unobtainable – which is a Christian doctrine. Ergo, any indigo (denim) dye is acceptable today; but all-white has never been justified.
While granting a geir or geir•âhꞋ being entered into Tor•âhꞋ the last name of " Bën-Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ" or Jewess " Bat-SârꞋâh" is an honor, the appellation "AvinꞋu" permanently tags the indivdual as a "convert." There have been many geir•imꞋ who have become Yᵊhud•imꞋ via instruction in Tor•âhꞋ by a sho•meirꞋ Sha•bâtꞋ Yᵊhud•iꞋ, followed by a recognized Bᵊrit Mil•âhꞋ and mi•qᵊwëhꞋ witnessed by 3 sho•meirꞋ Sha•bâtꞋ Yᵊhud•imꞋ. They are then Yᵊhud•imꞋ, no longer geir•imꞋ. Though they may be said to convert, they were never "converts." There is no such thing in Tor•âhꞋ as a "convert." A geir has always described a trainee who was not yet, a Yᵊhud•iꞋ. There have always been Yᵊhud•imꞋ and geir•imꞋ (and 8 other classifications in Ta•lᵊmudꞋ) in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. But there has never been a "convert" in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ! (Kâ•reitꞋ applies equally to all Jews, not any particular segment.)
The whole concept of "private domain" vs "public domain" was fabricated by reformers to enable Jews to – hypocritically – carry in the newly-created "private domain" without violating "carrying" in the newly-created counterpart "public domain." Otherwise, they couldn't so much as carry even a napkin, a morsel of food to join a neighbor for lunch or, today, a house key in their pocket. (But, some rabbis "posek," it's ok to safety pin the key to the outside of your pants! ) This introduced hypocrisy, carrying while concealing it, early in the irrational (illogical) reasoning. Such hypocrisy would grow into a devouring giant overwhelming rabbinic thought.
The rabbis assert that one cannot light a fire during a Khaj. But the rabbis permit lighting a cigarette from an already-burning source.
A Jew is prohibited from carrying an umbrella against rain on Shab•âtꞋ since opening the umbrella might be confused with building a tent – and building is â•surꞋ on Shab•âtꞋ. Strangely, carrying – which is also â•surꞋ on Shab•âtꞋ doesn't stop Orthodox Jews from shielding their heads from the rain with a magazine or newspaper.
Grinding salt or pepper at the table would be â•surꞋ on Shab•âtꞋ.
If a fire breaks out, unless there is danger to life, one should allow the house to burn down rather than extinguish it. (Rabbinic "dispensation" to both claim validity and then override this bogus prohibition to protect from loss of property is blatant self-serving hypocrisy.)
Tearing open a bag of potato chips, or a can of beer or soda or the seal of a bottle are â•surꞋ on Shab•âtꞋ.
"Harvesting" fresh herbs to top a plate of food, â•surꞋ on Shab•âtꞋ.
"Selecting" among foods, clothes, etc. is â•surꞋ – no freedom of choice – on Shab•âtꞋ.
Combing one's hair: combing is â•surꞋ on Shab•âtꞋ; "dispensation" is inconsistent.
Dropping a tomato or grape juice on a table cloth might dye it, â•surꞋ on Shab•âtꞋ.
The prohibition against music on Shab•âtꞋ, as well as the observance of Tisha b'Av in light of Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 8.19, both dating back to mourning the destruction of the First Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ, must be reviewed in consideration that
Herod's Hellenist Second "Temple," always cited by the year 70 C.E. as the subject of mourning though there was no mourning these occasions while it stood, never satisfied the requirements of the Nᵊviy•imꞋ, and
the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ prophesied by Yᵊkhëz•qeilꞋ was never intended to be anything like Herod's Hellenist Second "Temple," much less yet a another false physical House for Ël•oh•imꞋ.
Closing an umbrella is constructively demolishing, â•surꞋ on Shab•âtꞋ.
Refusing to wave the lu•lâvꞋ on Shab•âtꞋ because of an illogical perception of îÀìÈàëÈä,
Refusing to blast the shō•phârꞋ on Shab•âtꞋ because of an illogical perception of îÀìÈàëÈä.
Interpretations drawn from this hermeneutical distinction in the Bronze Age of ox carts represent a fundamental set of logically fallacious premises, which have led to numerous ex falso quodlibet rabbinic fallacies. While the ancient principles are eternal and unchanging, some distinctions from the Bronze Age of ox carts have introduced fallacies that subsequent rabbis amplified, that now glare false in our modern technological era. Many of today's rabbis, especially Ultra-Orthodox, insist that these resulting fallacious rulings, which in some cases glaringly and brazenly contradict Tor•âhꞋ shë-bi•khᵊtâvꞋ, instead of making the appropriate corrections, presume to overrule é‑‑ä when they "poseiq halacha"! (See ìÀöÇã; Dân•iy•eilꞋ 7.25; Ho•sheiꞋa 13.4; Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 45.21-22)!
When one investigates how these 39 categories can be "interpreted" into hundreds of others, the eventual and inexorable absurdity of trying to keep patching a 5th century C.E. fallacious generalization in the modern world, rather than correcting the basic definition to conform to logic, cannot escape any intelligent, reasonable and rational reader.
Notice that under the rabbinic definition, it is permissible–and, indeed, often occurs even in Orthodox synagogues–for Jews to orally conduct business; to discuss, negotiate or close financial deals on Shab•âtꞋ. Children are permitted (provided they don't write) to study their school or university homework on Shab•âtꞋ. However, one can see that this is prohibited under a logical analysis of Tor•âhꞋ and Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ. Thus, unlike non-Orthodox thinking, the logical analysis, being scientific and mathematically precise rather than subject to whim or agenda, is sometimes more strict – and always more consistent, predictable, reliable, dependable and, therefore, incorruptible.
When it comes to electricity, however, a vast maze of increasingly absurd contradictions, all of which were fabricated based on ignorance of science, are eliminated entirely. This, for one example, opens the door on Shab•âtꞋ, Khaj•imꞋ and Mo•ad•imꞋ for Jews in hospitals, convalescent homes and invalids to join, via videoconferencing, in tᵊphil•otꞋ, to phone or videoconference sharing DᵊvarꞋ Tor•âhꞋ with distant family members and friends, to study Tor•âhꞋ on the internet, to use microwaves to quickly and easily warm foods and beverages without wasting electricity and space on a huge hotplate and water urn for 24 hours, to see how to get to the bathroom at night without wasting electricity keeping a light on all night, to use a dishwasher, to have hot water – to enjoy more of Shab•âtꞋ studying and praising é‑‑ä instead of being imprisoned and shackled by Shab•âtꞋ under the thumbs of incompetent anti-science, Dark Ages European mentality, power-tripping and self-serving Ultra-Orthodox rabbis.
The rabbinic bottom-up method of adjudication derived from unsupported generalizations and naked assumptions projected from case-by case anecdotal rulings, is riddled with logical fallacies at its core. From the start, unfounded assumptions and weak generalizations are the logical fallacies of ex falso quodlibet. The rabbis' ultimate source precedents are generalizations – from Middle Bronze Age (ox-drawn carts, donkey-powered mill wheels, oil lamps, travel by caravans, et al.). Thus, the traditional rabbinic method of the past lacks the critical overarching, unified, guiding, Immutable Laws of mathematical logic that permit precision-constrained reasoning based on the core principles originally encapsulated in Tor•âhꞋ.
Lack of that overarching (consolidating and unifying), and constraining, definitional principle, compounded by continued reliance upon basing their rulings on logically unreliable generalizations and intuitive assumptions, ensures a continuous entangling of an infinitely sprawling nest of increasingly gnarly, internal self-contradicting strayings from the pristine original Principles of Tor•âhꞋ.
Modern rabbinic "halacha" is in dire need of restoring pristine Tor•âhꞋ. And Jews, both in Israel and the Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ, are in dire need of relief from Ultra-Orthodox enslavement.
Thus, the rabbis forever snared themselves in their shared dependence upon forever endlessly patching over earlier strayings of precedent rulings based on misconceptions of science, archeological evidence, documented history and reality. The routine overriding, by today's Ultra-Orthodox rabbis, of science, hard evidence, documented history and reality is no different from the ignorant denial of science and reality by the Christian Church during the Dark Ages! Even Christians should demand better today; certainly Jews should!
In contrast to the rabbis' denial of science and selective rewriting of history, Biblical – as well as the most precise and reliable scientific and logical – methodology is top-down: first defining the overarching principle of "work" that is compatible with the basic physics definition: the product of a force and the distance through which it moves a particle or body in the direction of that force. in other words, work is the energy or effort expended in producing some change, whether physical or abstract (electron flow among neurons).
This definition and principle stands, dependable and predictable, whether the work be carrying, pushing or other effort, physically or abstractly. When humans, animals or autonomous robots do work, this is what they do. Importantly, this Biblical and scientific definition exposes large sections of rabbinic Dark Ages strayings from, and displacements of Tor•âhꞋ mi-Har Sin•aiꞋ (namely, from c B.C.E. .04.01; see my Chronology Of The Tanakh, From The "Big ðÀèÄéÌÈä" Live-LinkT ).
The very detail and minutiae in Ta•lᵊmudꞋ, et al. that rabbis revel in citing as basis for their rulings, when viewed scientifically and in light of historical documentation, expose myriads of cases in which previous rabbis (who didn't even come into existence until almost 2 millennia after Har Sin•aiꞋ, c BCE 166 – again, see my Chronology Of The Tanakh, From The "Big ðÀèÄéÌÈä" Live-LinkT ) displaced Biblical principles with self-contradicting, post-Biblical REFORMS based on their contemporary Dark Ages European ignorance illogically generalizing from Bronze Age examples.
Just because it predates your lifetime doesn't mean it isn't a reform.
Today's Ultra-Orthodox rabbis, while loudly condemning reforms, are themselves unable to see back in history beyond their own predecessors' displacement reforms, which strayed from the original principles handed down at Har Sin•aiꞋ. Blindly and mechanically patching over earlier patches, these rabbis cite earlier reforms as their basis to presume to override the plain, ôÌÈùÑåÌè, text of Scripture.
Logical precision must displace any and all wannabe intermediaries to "heaven". Each Jew shall know and serve é‑‑ä directly (Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 31.33 {31.26-35} and Yo•eilꞋ 2.23-4.3). The road to seeing this Scripture fulfilled is to educate oneself to follow, instead of any intermediary or faulty reasoning, only the pristine, original principles of Tor•âhꞋ as interpreted according to documented history, archeological hard evidence and scientific logic.
Over the millennia, the most basic point of Biblical definitions has been displaced and lost in rabbinic casuistry. In Ta•na"khꞋ, the set of all òÂáåÉãÈä is distributed among two complementary subsets: îÀìÈàëÈä or ÷ÉãÆùÑ.
Work is exertion or effort (whether by human, animal or robot) – consistently all the way down to the nano-particle quantum level – directed to produce or accomplish something; a productive or operative activity; employment, labor or toil. Accordingly, òÂáåÉãÈä includes îÀìÈàëÈä as a specific kind and subset of work prohibited to both humans and animals (but not autonomous robots) on Sha•bâtꞋ.
Yet, this same detail and minutiae has locked the rabbis into contradictions of science that, repeatedly ad nauseum, expose their Dark Ages premises (i.e., ex falso quodlibet). While Ultra-Orthodox rabbis routinely proclaim by diktat, with no evidence, that their straying rulings come from Har Sin•aiꞋ, errors don't derive from Har Sin•aiꞋ!
The Ultra-Orthodox rabbis (who, by the way, prohibit the study of science and math beyond basic arithmetic because it contradicts their beliefs) are indefensibly ignorant and wrong, forcibly misleading Israel astray from Tor•âhꞋ into ever deeper and more convoluted errors of minutiae – which RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa noticed and rebuked even back in his day!
Increasingly, these errors of minute details are contradicted by science and reality, increasingly exposing the rabbis' ignorant mindsets, which remain mired in Dark Ages European superstitions and (Tor•âhꞋ-prohibited) mysticism intractably contradictory to modern science and the real world.
Constantly kicking the minutiae can ever deeper into quantum nanoparticle territory inexorably leads to a realization that even a thought alters the flow of electrons and other particles in one's brain – work! Your heartbeat – work. Blinking your eye – work. Moving your arm – work. Breathing – work. At some point, it's unavoidable that prohibitions on Sha•bâtꞋ cannot be, and were never, based on the rabbinic premises of Dark Ages (much less Stone Age) mindsets. One must return to restore the original definitions and understandings of these terms.
You cannot follow two intractable contradictions. You must choose.
 |
 |
 |