Re: What's wrong with Conservative Judaism


Beach Runner wrote:
cindys wrote:
"> No, it's not *symbolic.* It's a violation of the melachos (activities
prohibited on Shabbat) of creating a fire (the ignition), cooking (burning
the gasoline), and the final hammer blow (completing a circuit). This has
been explained on dozens of occasions, and you're not exactly new to the
group.


I don't dissagree with you, but it still remains highly symbolic.

Laws are not "symbolic." Laws are construed and then that construction
is applied to facts.

To construe a legal term it may require a functional understanding, or
a definition of a genus, as opposed to limiting the law to one stated
species.

You do not consider burning fuel in an IC engine to be "burning"?
Fine. You have to demonstrate that by first construing the melakha of
"hab'ara". Construction of legal elements is considerably more involved
than looking at a word in a pasuq for a minute or two using a
dictionary.

I still don't see any scholars from pre 1875 agreeing with you.

You do not see automobiles pre-1875. I do not see the relevance.
This is not 1875. We apply the Law to current facts.

As I originally said, it was not based on being serious here or any
kind of put
down. Just a recognition that symbolism is involved here.

Then I offer that you use the term "symbolic" inappropriately.

Jacko

.

Relevant Pages