Welcome to the world of Jewish law, in which it's considered acceptable to find ways around rules.
For example: Jews aren't allowed to eat leavened food, known as "chamets," (e.g., bread) on Passover. We're also not allowed to own leavened products. What do you do with all of the food that you bought before Passover? In theory, you have to throw it out, which would be a huge waste of money.
The solution is to sell this food to a non-Jew for the duration of the holiday. The contract says that the non-Jew owns these products for seven days (or eight, if you're outside of Israel). At the conclusion of the holiday, the non-Jew sells it back to the Jew, or fails to finalize the sale, or fails to exercise his/her option, etc.
Problem solved: Jews don't own chametz. We don't have to throw it out.
Is this using a legal loophole? Oh, yes. Is it universally accepted? No, but pretty close to 100% of the religious Jews I know do it. Have there been big arguments over this subject over the years? Of course! It's Jewish religious law, in which arguments are a part of the culture...
In my own view, as a reform Jew, many of the Kosher for Passover items that even Orthodox consume are loopholes anyway, like Kosher for Passover cakes.
In the words of my friend - "OK, we eat Matzah because when we left Egypt we didn't have time to let the bread rise. But somehow we had time to beat the egg-whites stiff?"
For those that don't know, during Passover, the spirit of the law is that we don't eat leavened bread. But it's codified such that IIRC there are five restricted grains, with 18 mins to cook after coming in contact with water. Nowadays, companies make rabbi-approved products such as cookies, cakes, and even generic Cheerios, which are for all intents and purposes leavened, but 'within spec'.
* - If you're wondering, IMHO the Kosher for Passover cakes and imitation cheerios are still pretty horrible, more-so the texture than taste. Maybe they're intentionally left this way to remind us they're not the 'real thing'.
How about this: The Egyptians invented yeast and leavened bread, and worshipped sheep. So how did Jews celebrate Passover, and the exodus from Egypt? By sacrificing a sheep, and refraining from eating anything made with yeast.
When the Temple was destroyed in Jerusalem, the sacrifice disappeared. Only the eating restrictions (beyond regular holiday restrictions) remained.
Over the years, different communities decided that other foods looked like grains, or acted like grains, or could be confused with grains. So they (e.g., corn, rice, and lentils) were restricted, as well, as part of this "spirit."
In Israel, I'm happy to say that you can get anything you want on Passover, except for things made with the original five grains and allowed to leaven (yes, for 18 minutes). You can have just about anything you want. Which is just fine with me; the point of Passover isn't to suffer, but rather to go without leavened bread for a week.
There's nothing inherently wrong with having kosher for Passover cakes. But once you have one, you'll avoid ever doing so again, I promise. (The kosher-for-Passover "rolls" are even worse!) I don't see having such cakes as a loophole, or even contrary to the spirit of the holiday, because the spirit of the holiday is to avoid leavened and bread products.
>I don't see having such cakes as a loophole, or even contrary to the spirit of the holiday, because the spirit of the holiday is to avoid leavened and bread products.
I don't follow you here.
Cakes are leavened, and the spirit of the holiday is to avoid leavened products. In my view, that makes the Kosher for Passover cakes (which are effectively leavened) a loophole.
Or are you suggesting the Kosher for Passover cakes are not really leavened?
Yes. Kosher-for-Passover cakes don't fall under the rules of leavening (chametz) in Jewish law.
Sometimes they're made with potato flour. (Yuck.)
Sometimes they're made with matza meal, which means very finely ground pieces of matza. The idea is that once flour has been wet and baked into matza, further contact with water won't leaven it. Some Jews don't accept this "wet matza" rule, but the majority do.
If someone made kosher-for-Passover cakes that were hard to distinguish from regular, year-round leavened cakes, then you might have a point, and perhaps they would be forbidden. But I don't think that anyone is ever going to make that claim. So given that they're different from year-round cakes, and given that they're not leavened anyway according to Jewish law, they're considered acceptable.
Pro tip: Ice cream on kosher-for-Passover cakes makes them far more palatable.
Yup, I know the Kosher-for-Passover cakes don't fall under the strictly defined rules of leavening, that's why they're officially Kosher as certified by a Rabbi.
But for all intents and purposes, again in just my common-person's view, they're effectively leavened. Just like normal breads and cakes, they're fluffy and squishy with tons of tiny air pockets created during the baking process. To me that means leavened.
<off-topic> : Another one of my confusions (as a Reform jew) is the Shabbat restriction of not doing work by making a spark. Okay, so one is supposed to avoid work on the Day of Rest by walking a mile to synagogue instead of driving 5 minutes in a car. Or walking up 10 flights of stairs to their apartment instead of getting in an elevator.
To me it would be more consistent to agree to re-interpret instead what it means to 'make a spark' as per the state of technology in the biblical times. Ie doing it with sticks or flint & steel can be considered work, vs the passive closing of an electrical circuit.
Jeff: They might be effectively leavened, but that's the whole point of a legal system, and of scholars to interpret it. What looks to you (or me) as a layperson like the same thing might not be the same at all. In this case, the technical definition trumps what might seem like leavening to you, because of debates and decisions that rabbis had about 2,000 years ago.
Of course, you can decide not to eat such kosher-for-Passover products. I do know some people who refuse to eat things that look like the year-round versions, because they feel like it's too close to the "real" thing."
As for sparks and electricity, the legal reasoning has nothing to do with "work." It has to do with "melacha," which is often poorly translated as "work," but has absolutely nothing to do with physical exertion. Rather, it has to do with creation, destruction, or just changing the nature of the world.
For 2,000 years, Jews have avoided anything having to do with light or fire on Shabbat. Electricity posed a bit of a problem -- here was a way of lighting and heating that was previously unknown, and which didn't fit previous legal categories. Should it be allowed or not? There were debates over this, and many Conservative rabbis argue that it's totally OK to use electricity on Shabbat.
I grew up in a home that used electricity on Shabbat, and I slowly came to the conclusion that even if it's permitted to use electricity, my Shabbat is radically enhanced by not doing so. Not using the computer, not using the phone, not watching TV -- these make my experience better and special, rather than worse.
Is that sometimes a pain? Yes, it is. But I have found that the trade-off is more than worthwhile.
Moreover, as I wrote in a previous comment, much of Jewish law is a forcing function toward community involvement. By forbidding people to drive on Shabbat, you increase the chances of having a culture of home hospitality and spending time with friends -- something is nearly universal among people who don't drive on Shabbat, and something which is almost completely non-existent among those who do.
Even if you could argue that driving a car is OK on Shabbat (and there are very few ways to justify that; remember that it's also forbidden to drive a horse or ride a bicycle), the social ramifications that I've seen are almost entirely detrimental to the community. Non-driving communities tend to be much closer knit than those in which people do drive.
So, why not do these things? Because it changes the way in which the day operates -- for you, for your family, and for your community. This doesn't mean that it's meaningful or appropriate for everyone, I'll admit.
Um, I really know (or at least I think that I know). I don't use a computer on the Sabbath. But I live in Israel, where it ended on Saturday evening, Israel time. And I was foolish/addicted enough to check HN after Shabbat ended.
I did, however, think that it was pretty funny that American Jews who know and can weigh in on the subject were unable to participate in much of the discussion!
> Welcome to the world of Jewish law, in which it's considered acceptable to find ways around rules.
Welcome to every religion.
As a Catholic, I order pizza at 11:30pm on Good Friday and having probably wolfed down 2 slices by 12:01am after a day of fasting. I have Muslim friends who shift their hours around during Ramadan to sleep during more of the day.
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. :-)_
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.
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.
This reminds me, when I was thirteen, we visited some friends of my parents, in Pennsylvania, who were Mennonites, but there was an Amish community near by and we would see people in the typical garb as well as horse and carts.
Once story our friends told us, is that Amish are not allowed to own a house with electricity connected to it. So they never make the final payment on their bank loans, so they never technically own the building.
I'm sure this annoys the more devout in their community. Just goes to show that no matter what belief or religion you observe, be it Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Atheist, there will always be those that follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law when it suits their own interests.
> no matter what belief or religion you observe, be it Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Atheist, there will always be those that follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law when it suits their own interests.
I object to you including "atheist" in this list, as atheism is exactly the opposite of that, it's not like an organized religion where you can follow the spirit of the law or not. It just means you believe that no god exists. Either you believe (or know, if you're atheist) that, or you don't, it's not at all comparable to religions.
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 lackadaisical and everything else.
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, talking about national laws or vegetarianism would have been pertinent in a way that atheism was not.
Respectfully, I disagree that you cannot be a devout atheist, but I think we are digressing.
Certainly national or government laws are applicable to my point of people who will follow the letter of the law, but find every little loophole they can if it benefits them, even if it harms others, and those that follow the spirit or principle in-which the law was enacted, sans loopholes.
> 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.
Sure you can. You can believe God exists, but decide, like an atheist, not to follow any rules because you don't think God cares. You can believe God exists and cares, but did not actually make any rules. You can Believe God is actually the laws of nature and is omni-everything, but not intelligent. You can believe God made the big bang but otherwise left the world alone (so there are no laws to follow).
Even "devout" atheists still have to believe in something that made the big bang. Some just ignore the topic, others think "we'll figure it out", others feel "whatever made it is outside the universe and thus of no concern to me", other feel "I only care about proven things, unproven things I ignore".
> Atheism is by definition a binary property.
As you can see from my list there are a tremendous number of shades of gray here. Like any religion there are multiple branches of atheism.
I don't want to get dragged in an argument about what atheism is, but the commonly accepted definition is that it is nothing more or less than the belief that no god exists.
The big bang has exactly nothing to do with atheism (why bring it up at all ? it's just a science topic) and "believing that a god exists but deciding, like an atheist, not to follow any rules" is not being an atheist. It is being a believer in some god (so, a theist) as well as an anarchist.
ALL your examples were people that are very clearly not atheists, since all of these examples involved believing in one god. They are only various examples of monotheist practices.
There can not be branches of atheism - and I know I'm exposing myself to a misguided answer making reference to the no true Scotsman fallacy, but it would be wrong. The very etymology of "atheism" leaves no place to branches: if you believe that a god exists, good, even if you think there is only one this still leaves many ways to believe in it... however, if you believe that no god exists, which is what atheism is, there is only one way for something not to exist at all.
There is a fundamental difference between believing something exists and believing something does not exist. Believing that it does not exist is a very simple belief, with no possible nuances while believing in the existence of something does leave place to interpretation.
The "supernatural", "being" and "superior powers" parts are very clear. If you can accept that a supernatural being with superior powers created existence, then you cannot be atheist.
If you believe that what you call "God", with a typically monotheist stance, is whatever created "existence" whatever that means, and whether or not it was a natural process or a supernatural being, then your personal definition of "God" is not the common one, and you should have given it earlier.
Also, I do not ignore the topic of where existence comes from (although that formulation sounds quite weird to me) but I leave it to science, and I am not an atheist either. I do have difficulty following the reasoning of occidental monotheists though, who seem to try very hard to spin their definition of a single "God" in order to claim that atheists are just believers like any other theist.
Whatever created existence (or the big bang) is by definition supernatural (which means outside nature). So my definition is not different, just differently formulated.
> If you can accept that a supernatural being with superior powers created existence, then you cannot be atheist.
Using your definition no atheists even exist, or at least they are illogical because clearly existence exists. It was created somehow. Or are we going to argue about the word "being" in that sentence?
Because if you are, know that I use that definition because any other is not sufficient to describe the full range of human beliefs. So yes, there is a range in atheism, it is not binary.
>Whatever created existence (or the big bang) is by definition supernatural (which means outside nature).
Unless nothing created existence, and the big bang was a natural event unrelated to the existence of existence.
>are we going to argue about the word "being"
Maybe. "being" is pretty clear and necessary to have a God. Wind comes from outside the ocean to make waves, but it is in no way a being or a God. No matter how 'supernatural' it would be from the perspective of ocean=nature.
No binary decision is ever truly perfect, but the yes/no of atheism is pretty damn close.
This, by the way, is a huge problem for a German expat in IL (back in DE now) during Passover.
Not only do they hide bread, there's a certain golden drink that is just as off limits in all the 'following' supermarkets and that's quite interesting.
(I kid. Yes, you don't get bread and beer, in theory. Tel Aviv has lots of shops that aren't Jewish or don't care or .. so it's mostly a sight to be seen and a way to explore the city, looking for more accommodating places..)
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.
For example: Jews aren't allowed to eat leavened food, known as "chamets," (e.g., bread) on Passover. We're also not allowed to own leavened products. What do you do with all of the food that you bought before Passover? In theory, you have to throw it out, which would be a huge waste of money.
The solution is to sell this food to a non-Jew for the duration of the holiday. The contract says that the non-Jew owns these products for seven days (or eight, if you're outside of Israel). At the conclusion of the holiday, the non-Jew sells it back to the Jew, or fails to finalize the sale, or fails to exercise his/her option, etc.
Problem solved: Jews don't own chametz. We don't have to throw it out.
Is this using a legal loophole? Oh, yes. Is it universally accepted? No, but pretty close to 100% of the religious Jews I know do it. Have there been big arguments over this subject over the years? Of course! It's Jewish religious law, in which arguments are a part of the culture...