Talk:Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law

FPOV

i.e. "frum point of view". This article presents only a strict Orthodox perspective, rife with chumrot (strictures). More lenient views are mentioned, as well as alternative concepts of electricity, but they are not elaborated. For example, Rabbi Auerbach and "Some Conservative Rabbis" are shown to be dissenting, and there are citations, but the article does not elaborate the reasons why. Perhaps this will be the first move in making the article more NPOV. --OneTopJob6 (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Plus, it doesn't represent a worldwide view by any means. Particularly, not of those communities in less developed countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.131.128 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You should try to expand the article instead of discrediting it. Everything is well explained. This is a fundamental article for "Jewish Law". Someone should try to elaborate the Conservative point of view, if interested. Any article could be expanded, but I think it doesn't lack neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.105.187 (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done some work to improve this, especially with reference to the 2012 responsum by Rabbi Daniel Nevins, writing for the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. Hznhr (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV issues

The article suffers from NPOV and other issues. First, the article mostly focuses on the dominant Orthodox view and does not really give much space to dissenting positions regarding electricity use on Shabbat. The reform Judaism position on the subject is completely missing and the conservative Judaism viewpoint is lacking in detail. Second, the way the article is written, while the intro does mention that most reform and some conservative Jews do not follow the strict rules about electricity on the Shabbat that Orthodox Jews do, the main body of the article seems to assume the Orthodox position is the only position. It's needs to be made clear that what is being describe in the main body of the article is the Orthodox view with section headers being added clarifying that the subsections that follow are only about the Orthodox view on electricity use on the Shabbat. For example, when the article says in the section "Source of the prohibition" that "Electrical appliances that generate heat, such as an incandescent light bulb or an oven, are prohibited Biblically (de’orayta) for reasons to be explained." that presents the view of Orthodox and some conservative rabbis as if all practicing Jews hold this view. The reality is that most reform and some conservative Jews do not this view and thus we should clarify that in that section as well as every other section that describes only the orthodox view, not just leave it to the intro to mention that some conservative and many reform Jews differ from the Orthodox position. Third, there are a lot of mentions of various rabbis and their views on the topic but it's never explained who each of these rabbis is. For example, let's look at the following quote: "The Chazon Ish wrote that closing an electrical circuit to create current was Biblically prohibited as building, and opening a closed circuit was the corresponding prohibited act of destroying. - Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach disagreed vigorously with the Chazon Ish.". The sentence give the reader no idea who Chazon Ish or Shlomo Zalman Auerbach are other then that the later is a rabbi. I have to click on their names to go to the articles on them to get even a basic description of who they are. It would be better to have some sort of brief description of each rabbi listed after their name. For example, you could say "The Chazon Ish, an Orthodox rabbi and former leader of the Haredi Judaisma in Israel,...", that way the reader has basic sense that he is an Orthodox rabbi who was a former leader of Haredi Judaisma in Israel. --Cab88 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The article, to me, a non-Jew, does seem to give the impression it mostly applies to Orthodox Jews. Perhaps it needs spelling out directly. Even a sentence or two pointing out "Reform Jews do not observe this proscription" etc would be enough. Just a paragraph describing the other Jewish positions would do a good job. Why not add it yourself?

Re the identity of various Rabbis of the ages, a link is enough for anyone who's interested. If the Rabbis mentioned are all Orthodox, it's something to be expected since, as you mention, it's mostly an Orthodox issue. How the Sabbath is observed by different Jewish sects generally is too broad for this article, so a short mention would be fine in this context. 188.29.165.75 (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no reform "position" in regard to the use of electricity on shabbat that is not presented in the article. The Reform position is that the biblical laws of shabbat are for some reason not relevant, not they they have a position on the use of electricity per se. For example reform Jews will light a fire on shabbat also, so its not that they disagree for some reason that lighting an incandescent light bulb is not a violation on the prohibition on creating a fire, they simply disregard the biblical laws about shabbat, just as they do with most biblical prohibitions.L69 (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thermostat

This is very interesting. While opening a window may operate a heater's thermostat, it only does so by making the room colder. As soon as the room warms to it's previous temperature, it switches off again. Thus there is no way to make a room warmer by deliberately introducing cold air!

Possibly if the thermostat was directly next to a window, this would work to make the room warmer. This is why thermostats are supposed to be placed in an "average" part of the room, to measure the whole room's temperature. A large room might sometimes have 2 thermostats because of this.

Maintaining a constant temperature is the point of a thermostat! I can't see why anyone would consider using one a transgression of the rules, as long as it's not adjusted on the Sabbath. Even then it's changing the likelihood of a fire to start. Perhaps there's money in selling thermometers with a randomised delay in acting, every time someone adjusts it.

It seems picky anyway to apply rules given to hut-dwellers 4,000 years ago, to things like electricity so precisely. If it were me I'd go along with the intent of the rules in context, ie not labouring. Cleaning out, building, and starting a real fire is hard work. But what do I know?

188.29.165.75 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)