Re: Proposal To Curtail Commercial Activity on Shabbat in Israel

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 02:40:18 +0000 (UTC), "YM"
<bar_kochba132@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Shabbat exists for its own sake, not for the sake of overworked
minions.

What the heck is this supposed to mean? Of course it is.
If all Jews were to keep the laws of the Torah, it would
be better for all the Jewish people and all of mankind.
When the Jews violate the Torah, it is bad for the
Jewish people and the rest of mankind.
We should observe the Torah because we
are commanded to.

I agree. So why are you asking when you're saying the same thing?

One of the benefits of
Torah observance is the
one you mentioned...it gives vital rest to workers.
Unfortunately, not everyone is receptive to the
reasons I gave above, so in order to get people
to go along with Shabbat observance we mention
the benefits as if that was the only consideration.
If people want to call that "socialism" or whatever,
then that is okay by me...first people should
observe the Torah for some extraneous reason,
then they will hopefully come to appreciate it for
itself.

The problem, in addition to being dishonest on the face of it, is that
it misleads. Suppose I'm a voter confronting such a law. If you argue
that mandatory Shabbat closing should be initiated because the Torah
commands it, fine, then I can think about whether or not I want
Israeli society to move towards state-mandated halacha. But if it's
presented simply as a means to ensure harried workers a day off, then
voters risk being blindsided when you come back in a year or two
demanding universal kashrus.

I believe it was Ahad Ha'am that said
"more than Israel kept the Sabbath, the
Sabbath kept Israel"-so he certainly believed
that Shabbat observance had beneficial
effects (and he was not Orthodox).

Well, in that case it must be so....

"Modesty is in thought, not clothing."

What is this supposed to mean? Who invented
such a nonsensicle statement? "Modesty" is how
one acts around other people. How they dress, how
they treat subordinates, how they show respect to
to others. Is this supposed to mean that it is okay
for women to walk around practically naked, as is
unfortunately the case in Israel today? Does this mean that "modesty"
is supposedly "not her problem", but that of all the men who are forced
to look at her (not everyone can look away all the time). Or is their

Yes. Of course it's not her problem. Learn to control yourself and
your thoughts. If seeing a woman's flesh prompts thoughts you consider
inappropriate maybe you should ask yourself why. Men who become
enraged when they believe women are "flaunting" themselves are usually
the sort who believe that women are receptacles and little more.

Furthermore modesty is a relative proposition. I've seen photos of the
Satmar community from the mid-1960s. What the women wore then would be
scandelous today.

solution to the wolf-whistles they may elicit from their provocative
dress to call the police and kvetch about "sexual harassment"
(acknowledging that the fools who do the whistling are playing
into their hands)?

Yeah. Why not? Wolf whistling may have been a harmless compliment, at
one time. But no longer. Everyone with a IQ higher than a potted plant
knows it's become provocative and inappropriate to use on a woman you
don't know well.

Look at it this way, if someone who's obviously frum walks through a
gentile neighborhood eliciting comments of '***" is that *his* fault?
Did he flaunt his Jewishness like a red flag before his hapless
neighbors, who can't be criticized for their reaction because he *is*
forcing them to look, right?

Andy Katz
.

Quantcast