While some were dying others continued to dance and celebrate preventing the rescue.

>Footage shot as the disaster unfolded showed police officers trying to stop people from fleeing the scene. That could have been because the officers did not immediately realize the extent of the danger, or because they wanted to prevent the stampede from spilling into other areas of the compound.

What it does say is

>Amid the chaos, as medics tried to reach the injured, prominent Israeli rabbis remained onstage, trying to restore calm by reading psalms for the wounded.

your take is wrong and wrongheaded.

By the end of the Shabbat doctor takes a pen and and a bunch of death certificates for people whose relatives won't use the phone during Shabbat. For the evening this is his only job.

I have many family members who are in the medical profession in Israel. I have been behind the desk on Shabbat in Shaarei Tzedek Hospital (the "Haredi" hospital) that accepts incoming patients.

There is not a single group of Jews that thinks it is admirable to risk a life for Shabbat. The more the religious, the more they value life and quicker break Shabbat.

Do a bit of research in Hatzoloh and Joint Hatzoloh - it is impressive the lengths that volunteers go to, to save a life in Israel (Jewish and Muslim equally). They are active everywhere, and do not get fewer calls from the ultra-Orthodox.

A closer case would be if there were an elevator that had a camera that recognized every person who approached it who lived in the building, and which took them to the floor they live on.

Such a company is not entirely unimaginable given sufficiently roundabout sensing mechanisms. It could be especially useful in Israel due to the majority of the population being Jewish and with many neighborhoods and towns nearing 100% Jewish residents. Mostly, though, religious Jews in Israel are just used to not having a Shabbos goy as an option. That said, the one time I found myself really stuck in a bind where a Shabbos goy was the only reasonable solution, I was fortunate enough to see a non-Jewish taxi driver pull over within minutes of going outside to look for one.

Contrast that with a device that constantly scans for faces and is continuously sending instructions to the elevator controller. In this case, it is always sending an instruction about which floor to go to. If no one is present (and nothing is happening on other floors), the instruction is to stay on the current floor, doors open. If someone approaches and is not recognized, then on the Sabbath the instruction would be to go floor by floor. And if someone approaches and is recognized, the instruction would be to go to that person's floor. In any of the three cases, instructions are being sent via continuously-active circuitry. This is different from the motion sensor, where a circuit is completed only when someone is present and triggers it.

But like I said, I know little of this subject, and I'm sure these ideas have been vigorously debated by experts!

(muktse are things you can't move/carry/handle on shabat)

Anyway I think activating something with it would be the same as activating a motion sensor, which is prohibited.

Now, should you really be doing that on the Sabbath? What if you actually succeeded in coming up with a really clever algorithm? Would that not have been work?

(And if not - what if you later discover that the elevator company has offered a bounty for exactly such a solution, and you proudly email it in and get your 50 bucks and free t-shirt. Is it now, retroactively, work?)

Actually implementing it would of course break Shabbat, but pondering it is fine.

I think many systems should be designed with reduced functionality modes, and have them automatically enabled when practical. It's often better to have a partially working system than a total failure.

> This thread conceptually turns public space into private domain, and allows observers of the Sabbath to carry their essential belongings with them.

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/inside-lines-eruv-wir...

[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/05/13/721551785/a-fishing-line-enci... [2] https://twitter.com/ManhattanEruv/status/1388202630048993281

The biggest issue I see is about the cable length: you would need to use high voltages to make up for the losses and fault location would become way more difficult. Another option would be break up the cable in smaller sections and monitor each of these independently, but I don't know if that's a valid option for this use case since the entire point of the eruv is that it must be continuous (maybe the sections could be tied together using non-conductive materials?)

I guess if you add a Rube Goldberg machine to your electronics, it's ok.

My favorite was when I visited some family members that lived in a area with many devout Jewish people. The building they lived in didn't have elevators with a Sabbath mode, and when I entered the elevator, an elderly woman who had been waiting entered with me and mumbled "I live on floor 12". I pressed the button for her, but it was only later that I realized she was waiting for someone to do the work for her without specifically instructing them to do the work because of the day. So odd.

If someone is wearing a tinfoil hat, his lengthy explanations about the capabilities of American and Russian intelligence agencies capabilities doesn’t make it sound less dumb.

Yes...? When the time comes I'll not spend money which could otherwise buy several unforgettable vacation trips on a shiny overpriced rock, due to cultural pressure.

Now if we're talking about illegal eruvs (eruvim) such as steel cables or chains at ground-level that have killed motorcyclists in the past...I obviously think that's a good thing...

Then again people are free to live by whatever self-imposed rules they desire, as silly as it looks to someone else.

As to the curious case of the eruv: The fundamental laws of Sabbath observance are mandated by the Bible, but the specifics of forbidden activities have been refined by rabbinic discussion over hundreds of years. These are documented in the Mishna, the Talmud, and many other sources continuing to the current era. It would be more accurate to view the eruv as a technical way to enclose a shared communal area. This has always been built into the technical determination of domains as set by rabbanic authorities, and functions more as a constant reminder of Sabbath than as a "loophole".

Anyone who observes Shabbat would never confuse it for a regular weekday, even with an eruv and light timers.

This is one great example. Also a lot of ovens have sabbath mode. So do TVs (although those are just timers for on and off now). The Eruv wire is another Jewish hack.

Alexa has opened up a whole new avenue of hacks. Previously you had to get light switches with random timers if you wanted electric light on Saturday, but now you can make an Alexa routine that is triggered by certain words or motions so that it technically doesn't count as "activating" the switch.

Jews have basically been hacking for 5000 years. :)

I think religion brings many good things to the world, guides people and gives them something to hold on to in difficult times. But the super strict following of rules that someone interprets out of a book that was written thousands of years ago is not one of the good things. And to be sure: for me that applies the same to all religions, this article is about Jewish hacks but there are also Christian and Muslim rules that make no sense now centuries later.

Following a set of rules, even arbitrary rules, can be a part of a tradition. For example, one of the rules that my family follows is putting up a Christmas tree around the beginning of December and decorating it. This is work, in some sense "stupid" and "irrelevant" work: my hands have gone numb while trying to cut with a handheld saw at the base of at tree before. The needles make a mess everywhere. Cutting down trees is probably not great for the environment. But, if my (American, Protestant) culture weren't so hellbent on seeing religion a matter of individual belief, we'd probably recognize that this is a religious practice. It's a unique set of weird things we do that sets us apart and brings us together.

Other practices seem connected to holding a sense of wonder for the world we live in. My experience with Sabbath-remembrance is that it is an attempt to commemorate life itself (as a creative act) by choosing to rest (not creating) on that day. (I can't speak for Jews, my background was Christian.) As someone who's now a religious "none/other", I think there's something still work respecting in these practices, even if they sometimes seem badly aligned with the modern fast-moving world.

Following a set of arbitrary rules can create tradition and community, and if these are harmless this is fine, but this example of finding workarounds for your own religion comes across as keeping up appearances for others who subscribe to it; not actual religious adherence. I mean, most gods I've read about don't look to kindly on interpreting their principles to the letter (“Look! I'm not touching the switch, but if I say ‘Alexa, I feel gloomy’ the light comes just happens to come on!”) rather than to the spirit.

"Israel" is literally defined in Genesis to mean "the one who strives with God", so this kind of argumentative approach to one's own religion might not be approved by "most gods", but that doesn't mean it can't be part of some religions. I would also note that some Jews who have replied to this thread have indicated that they do endeavor to follow both the letter and spirit of the law.

I have always understood there to be two classes of hacks in Judaism.

The impermissible class circumvents the spirit of the law.

The permissable class clarifies what the spirit of the law actually is.

The spirit of the Shabbat law is to rest and resting is defined as refraining from a set of 39 categories of labor. One of these categories is transferring an object from one domain to another. But is it really labor to carry a cake to a friends house as a gift when attending a meal? Is it labor to push a child around in a stroller?

The loophole of Eruv is intended to enable Jews to define communities by drawing a string around them and demarcate a logical line of what constitutes labor vs not on Shabbat as a something external to the community vs external to the home. This is a psychological exercise to force Jews to understand the boundaries of their communities so as to protect them from actually performing labor and preserving the sanctity of Shabbat.

The point is to sculpt the life of the practitioner—so that we remember God and His creative presence in our lives in all that we do. Extra work beforehand, moving effort around to clear the Sabbath, then having a weird day on the Sabbath, is a great way of doing that. Acting as a family on the Sabbath doesn’t hurt either!

The orthodox all seem to feel an obligation like that of lay brothers in Christianity. Even there: God is eternal, so prayer cannot change Him. Why pray? It changes us. Why pray unceasingly? For unceasing change.

In most societies, we leave most people at the default shape of life and set apart those who want to sculpt their living of their life. Orthodox Judaism asks that level of commitment of all its members, and so has persisted for a couple hundred years with less change than most.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWSoYCetG6A

It’s also odd to me that violating the spirit of the rules via technicalities is considered morally acceptable in that context (and yes, like any religion there are twisted rationalizations about why it all makes perfect sense).

Hell, in ancient times they even had land Sabbaths.

Not that it’s all feasible but can you imagine how better off oceans and lands would be if they could be given even a year’s break on a seven year cycle?

Why not be honest to yourself and admit that you actually don't care so much about the Laws?

The the following obviously isn't universal since people have different approaches to their faith, but I would argue the exact opposite. Many people don't do this because they are dishonest or because they don't care about these laws. They do this because they are honest with themselves and they do care about these laws.

Modern society is now setup in such a way as to often give people a choice between living a modern lifestyle or living strictly by laws written thousands of years ago before this life was possible. If presented with the choice between breaking these law and having that lifestyle, people chose to be honest with themselves and adopt that modern lifestyle. However the laws are so important that they must be maintained even if that maintenance now only exists in a symbolic way. That is how you might get people that maintain these seemingly bizarre workarounds. They are able to live a more normal life while constantly reinforcing and reminding themselves of the importance of their religion.

Some believe that this dedication in pleasing God might be just as if not even more important than following some law written thousands of years ago as strictly as possible.

The core set of rules comes from specific actions that were banned in the ancient Tabernacle on the Sabbath. Electricity use is not banned per se on the Sabbath (as electricity was not discovered several thousand years ago); instead, the core law of "do not fix things on the Sabbath" was ruled to ban completing circuits on the Sabbath once electricity became widespread; similarly, "do not break things on the Sabbath" covers breaking a circuit. The rules only cover actions performed by Jews during the Sabbath; they don't cover actions taken on other days even if those actions result in changes on the Sabbath, so for example setting up a timer to turn lights on or off is permissible as long as you set it up prior to the Sabbath. Ditto for these kinds of elevators.

The Sabbath rules have pretty much nothing to do with environmentalism or energy use.

- "do not fix things on the Sabbath" ban[s] completing circuits

- "do not break things on the Sabbath" covers breaking a circuit

sound extremely convoluted to me. A switch's express purpose is to break and complete circuits to direct current. It is part of the object's usage, part of the creator's intent on the object's utility. It has modes of operation where the circuit is broken and complete by design. The saner interpretation of this law IMO would be along the lines of "if a switch got stuck on a Sabbath, good luck on the energy bill, mate".

I have one of those trash cans with a pedal that opens the lid. It is a switch but none of it is electronic. Are Jews not allowed to operate these contraptions on a Sabbath too? It arguably introduces a break in the object, namely the opening for the trash can. Heck, does Jewish law even allow opening trash cans on a Sabbath, at all? By such broad applicability, the only difference between any lidded trash can (a closed object most of the time) and an electric circuit is the presence/absence of current. Can a Jew unlock padlocks on a Sabbath? What about opening doors?

(FINAL NOTE: HN mostly has charged---pun intended---discussions over things we deem ridiculous. Such discussion is NOT my intent here. I know J. Random Netizen like me isn't going to change Jewish culture in two paragraphs. I just wanted to waste actuations of my mechanical keyboard to register my astonishment and confusion over this interpretation.)

This is an excellent point and is a big reason why a lot of rabbis would not give "building" as an answer. Another answer commonly given is that electricity is like fire (made a lot more sense when "electricity" was 99.9% stuff like starting your car with a spark and incandescent lightbulbs) and lighting a fire is prohibited; this doesn't really hold much water anymore. Another reason given is that there's a rabbinic prohibition on "creating", but that doesn't really work because, like you said, all electric appliances are made to be turned off too. Basically electricity on the sabbath is pretty weak as far as prohibitions go and any explanation you hear for why it's banned will always be post-hoc, and the real reason why it's banned is because rabbis are afraid that letting people use electricity will "destroy the spirit of shabbat" (but they can't actually say that's the only reason because it's not strong enough to prohibit it). In fact, on holidays (like passover and the like) the prohibition becomes much, much weaker (to the point where some poskim say that turning on and off LED lights is permitted, among other things.)

But the proper way to address this question is to ask your rabbi of course. If you're an observant Jew, you have one. If he says it's OK then it's OK, if he says it's not then it's not. Sometimes they disagree, and sometimes the disagreement grows big so some strict people for example only eat food that has the Kosher stamp of a specific authority and not the others, and so on.

Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, a very prominent orthodox Jewish halachist held that closing/opening an electrical circuit does not constitute the biblical prohibition of building and destroying.

Instead, he held that that electricity was prohibited "Rabbinically" for an unrelated reason (which is of a lower degree of severity, which has practical implications).

Notwithstanding this, if one say, turns on an incondescent lightbulb I believe that is biblically prohibited according to all because of the heat it generates.

Most rabbinic authorities still prohibit Sabbath mode ovens on Shabbat for different reasons, but on holidays with weaker restrictions but that still have electricity bans, like Passover, permit their use.

I remember when my parents first got a "Sabbath mode" oven, the local Orthodox rabbi came over excitedly just to see it at work.

But they're explicitly dedicated for times of need and not for leisure purposes.

As a former LDS/Mormon (now effectively humanist/atheist), this concept of authority is pretty interesting. One of our core lessons when I was a missionary was that God's authority was lost from the Earth, and had to be restored by a new line of prophets. Some of my fellow missionaries enjoyed discussing this with messianic Jews in the area, sharing interpretations back and forth.

So in Judaism, are there tiers of rulemaking authority? Could a rabbi override a previous rabbi, but not a prophet?

Instead, they're following these rules as a social decree. In their circles, it is the obvious and accepted thing to do to follow these rules, which the community's leading Rabbi sets (or well, gives guidelines which are socially considered binding). If you don't follow the rules, then you're a weird one, and religious communities tend not to be accepting of the different, so they will shun you for turning on the light on Sabbath (if you keep doing it..)

So for one born into a religious community, you're taught to do so and there is a strong social incentive to do so: if you don't, you're first branded an odd one, and in some cases shunned, depending on how severe your straying off the path is. If you were told that were you to use the elevator normally, your parents would be very upset with you and may stop talking to you altogether, you'd think about it twice, even if you don't personally feel that you want to follow Judaism.

Finally, the religious authorities have a power incentive to do this: by setting rules and maintaining their position as the authorities who set rules, they keep a lot of power over a large number of people. Often this even manifests financially, as a respected religious authority can give Kosher certificates (and many products which are not food, like phones, can also be Kosher) - of course, the certification costs money, just like a SOC2 audit. Same goes for Sabbath certified electric devices - someone gave their stamp of approval, and the developer paid for it.

So to summarize - religious authorities enjoy power and money by being those who set the rules, everyday people have a strong social incentive to follow the rules as breaking them is taboo.

I think about it like following requirements set by certain certifications. Not all requirements make sense in every context - sometimes you may feel silly complying, knowing you're doing it just to check a box, even though there's no practical value to it.

But there is a value to passing the audit and getting the certificate saying you comply from EY or whoever, so you abide by the requirements, even when they don't make sense, so you can show your ~Kosher~ ISO certificate when you need to.

I'd like to point out that this isn't all there is to it - there are very obviously other incentives to do things this way (e.g. personal belief), but I'm just trying to make an analogy with terms from the HNer's day to day to show why you might follow religious rules even if you're (say) a teenager who doesn't care one bit.

> I think about it like following requirements set by certain certifications. Not all requirements make sense in every context - sometimes you may feel silly complying, knowing you're doing it just to check a box, even though there's no practical value to it. But there is a value to passing the audit and getting the certificate saying you comply from EY or whoever, so you abide by the requirements, even when they don't make sense, so you can show your ~Kosher~ ISO certificate when you need to.

In general there are a huge swaths of rules in Judaism that are expected even within Orthodox Judaism to serve no practical purpose, other than simply God (supposedly) said to follow them. If you believe that God said you can eat a goose, but you cannot eat a stork, why is it any more ridiculous to believe God said you must not light a fire on Shabbat? It's all kind of silly unless you believe in the fundamental premise that these are rules from God, in which case none of it is silly. In the Orthodox communities I was raised in, the idea of a checkbox that you feel silly complying with didn't really exist: either you believed in the premise that God really wanted you to check those checkboxes, or you didn't, at which point why were you not eating shellfish or driving on Shabbat?

There are social norms too, of course. But at least for religious adults, in my experience it's mostly uncynical.

In the case of the Sabbath elevator, obviously it was not mentioned explicitly in the Bible, so it's what the Rabbi thinks. So why believe the Rabbi when the logic doesn't seem to be 100% there? I think the reason is there is massive social incentive to comply instead of asking questions about such widely accepted ideas.

It does seem you're speaking from more personal experience than mine, so I defer to you, but I'd like to reiterate that I'm just trying to provide a plausible explanation for why one who doesn't have such a strong belief might still end up doing it (the hypothetical person in the post of the poster I was replying to who's asking themselves why a Sabbath elevator makes sense), but I'm not trying to say that's all there is to it. People who don't question it in the first place because their thought process is that the Halacha is telling them what God meant and thus they are merely following God's instructions don't question whether a Shabbat elevator makes sense in the first place.

You either follow the spirit of the rule or you don't. This sounds like the "hack" of christianity: live a sinful life and then repent on your deadbed.

https://kk.org/thetechnium/amish-hackers-a/

The Commandment in Genesis 20:10 spells out the Sabbath rule. "But the seventh day is a sabbath to [the holy name]; you shall not do any work — you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns"

There seems to be a streak of moral fairness here: don't work on the seventh day, and don't use your power over others to force them to work either. Everybody enjoys a day of rest, migrant workers and beasts of burden included!

How strong is this sort of ethical argument against hacks like Shabbat elevators?

"By consuming electricy needlessly we compel some electric-utility workers to be on the job, and we fail to give Creation a much-needed tiny bit of rest."

I know there must be some conversation among observant Jews about this kind of thing as it relates to the ancient commandments. How does it go?

>Everybody enjoys a day of rest, migrant workers and beasts of burden included! I actually do think getting an animal or someone else to do shabbat work for you is prohibited except under certain circumstances and following certain restrictions.

>"By consuming electricy needlessly we compel some electric-utility workers to be on the job, and we fail to give Creation a much-needed tiny bit of rest." Don't think god needs to rest.

Remind me again what happened on the seventh day?

Except for that one time, you mean.

Wikipedia source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_on_Shabbat#Use_of_...

The simplest hack I've seen was pre-torn toilet paper - while tearing stuff is not permitted on Shabbat, the needs of your body do not cease, so one has to prepare :)

One basic reason a community will have some arbitrary rules: They make it expensive to be part of the community. They make it harder to fake adherence and profit from the group. All members of the community understand this intuitively even if they can't express it. So they welcome what looks like silly rules to the outsider.

>Like, if God is a truly omnipotent and all knowing, why would he/she care that you're tearing toilet paper on Shabbat or flipping a light switch.

Because god prohibited these things.

>Equally, if you assume that this all powerful God really cares about this stuff, why would you assume they can be "tricked" by those hacks?

Because they permitted doing it that way.

>Is the God all powerful and all knowing? Or literally so stupid that you can defeat the sacred logic with some simple hacks?

God is all powerful and all knowing and the things they prohibited are prohibited and the things they didn't aren't.

>Like the Eruv wire that wraps around Manhattan - do religious people honestly think that this "trick" works, in a spiritual sense?

Loaded question, but short answer is yes. I think you should read this article (https://www.halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Introduction_to...). The eruv is to get around a rabbinic prohibition, not a divine one. It's also not accepted by everyone as a valid technicality; my rabbi would carry in nothing less than a walled city.

>That they go to have their eternal judgement dispensed and God goes "yep, well done, you tricked me, I never specified the maximum diameter of the wire, and clearly you humans are too stupid to read context/intention in 'do no work' so yeah, it's all good, I have to let this one slide".

No you go to your eternal judgement and god goes "good job you never violated any of my commandments".

>>Because god prohibited these things.

But God didn't, at least not explicitly. The specific instruction is to "do no work on Shabbat". The interpretation is human. I think(and of course Rabbis disagree) that interpreting "flipping the light switch" as work is NOT what God meant, it feels almost like an insult to intelligence to interpret it this way. There is an intention behind it, and I think the intention is more important than trying to be as literal as physically possible. After all doing literally anything is "work" in the sense that there is physical activity happening, you are burning oxygen just breathing, walking creates sound and talking moves the air about - it's all "work" in the physical sense. Why is flipping a switch special? I know the answer to this - because religious authorities have decided that's the case.

But that loops back to the original point - God didn't decide this. Rabbis did.

It's like Muslims are prohibited from consuming alcohol and if we accept that this is a divine restriction, we can still discuss what it actually means for us humans. Some interpretatioms say that Muslims shouldn't drink alcohol because the intention here is to prevent inebriation. But cooking with alcohol is fine because it doesn't lead to inebriation. Some other teachings say that all alcohol is bad. Those teachings conveniently ignore that alcohol is in everything(your average loaf of bread contains up to 2% alcohol by volume, purely due to yeast fermentation), but dogma is more important than reality.

So yes, I think I stand by what I said initially - all of this feels like a game, with some really crazy rules. Play according to the rules and you get eternal salvation. Don't question the rules.

This is a good point, but I think orthodox judaism wouldn't say that the interpretation is human. In orthodox judaism, the interpretation of biblical commandments is usually assumed to be oral tradition from god. There are also rabbinic decrees, but these are generally treated with something approximating the force of a biblical command because there's also a biblical command to follow the rulings of the rabbis.

>I think(and of course Rabbis disagree) that interpreting "flipping the light switch" as work is NOT what God meant, it feels almost like an insult to intelligence to interpret it this way. There is an intention behind it, and I think the intention is more important than trying to be as literal as physically possible.

This is speaking like you're not obligated to fulfill the commandments. That's axiom one. Once we have that down, the obvious next question is "what are the commandments." Asking "what is the spirit of the commandments and when can I violate them" is wrong because the answer in orthodox judaism is that you can never violate them. You can make an orthodox argument that electricity should be allowed, the prohibition is definitely rather unbased in actual law imo. But that wouldn't be because it's ok in the spirit of the law, it would be because the law permits it.

>So yes, I think I stand by what I said initially - all of this feels like a game, with some really crazy rules. Play according to the rules and you get eternal salvation. Don't question the rules.

I think I can agree with this. Most of the rules do in fact feel like dumb contrived bullshit. If you actually look at the categories for work on the sabbath it's very clearly stuff that a worker in the BCEs would think is work; lighting fires, doing planting and harvesting, carrying stuff, weaving, making bread, it's all very strange and disjointed from modern reality. And this is supposedly divine decree too, so it's not even the work of ancient rabbis, supposedly.

It's amazing that people can just come out and say "I know what the God meant, while people who lived this tradition for thousands of years, carried it over several continents and kept it alive through wars, plagues, genocides, raise and ruin of empires - they all don't know what they're talking about". It certainly is gutsy.

The thing is, there's only two ways to know things, in general. One is experience it yourself - in this case, you go to God, ask Him (or Her, or Them, whatever works for you) what is the meaning of that, get an answer and live the rest of your life according to it (or ignore it if you like, your choice, free will and stuff). Another is trust the relevant authorities - and in this case, those are the rabbis. If you are interested in Judaic tradition, then there's no Judaic tradition outside the rabbis. Of course, inside there's a lot of variety, but if you discard the rabbis, then you've got no Judaism. Whatever is left is not based on Judaic tradition anymore, and then one would have to ask - what exactly is it based on? Why would you believe anything in those texts at all or put any importance into it? Of course, you don't have to - but then the question of what's the right thing to do on Shabbat is moot - you do whatever you like (well, excluding the obvious things like murdering people etc.) and it's fine.

I'm just amazed that all of the thousands of years of experience, of wars famines struggle, of tradition of practice of worship of deep religious study was required to come up with a conclusion that somehow flipping a light switch is work. I'm not saying I know better, after all I'm not a follower of this religion, but this article was very specifically about a way to avoid pressing buttons because once again, all of those thousands of years of tradition decided that pressing buttons is work. Ok, cool, I'd like to point out that it doesn't make any sense to me. But then I forgot that religion doesn't have to make any sense to exist.

> I'd like to point out that it doesn't make any sense to me

It wouldn't. At least until you actually learn the framework and understand the terminology and the rules of it. And it's not supposed to make sense you you anyway - it's not made for you.

Nobody knows what God "cares" about, nor even if "caring" is something God does at all, in a sense that humans do it. It's like comparing human to CPU by clock frequency - these are different things, and clock frequency is a useable measure for a CPU (at least certain designs of CPUs) but quite useless if you want to talk about a human. You can't just bring terminology from one area onto another and expect it automatically to make sense.

> Is the God all powerful and all knowing?

Yes.

> Or literally so stupid that you can defeat the sacred logic

Why you think it's "defeating" anything? God is not a CTF contest. You framing it as "defeat" is just your framing, but it's not how Jews see it - they see it as "preserving", not "defeating".

> do religious people honestly think that this "trick" works, in a spiritual sense?

What you mean by "works"? It certainly works for them. It may not work for you, but if you are neither an observant Jew nor God, who cares if it works for you or not?

Works as in - they believe that they go for their eternal judgement and God says "I clearly said 'do no work' and you thought that by wrapping an entire city in a piece of wire you can safely ignore my commandment".

I know it's pointless to apply logic to religion, but how far could you stretch that? Could you wrap an entire country in wire and claim it still have the same effect? An entire continent? The entire planet?

>> who cares if it works for you or not?

I understand you're being flippant, but come on. I'm just asking if religious people think that such a simple "trick" is really going to be accepted by God as compliant with holy commandments. I can see the answer is clearly yes.

No, that's not what they believe - they're not ignoring the commandment. They are fulfilling it in accordance with the rules given to them by God and passed down by tradition.

> Could you wrap an entire country in wire and claim it still have the same effect

I don't know, maybe - if an authority in the Jewish law declares it ok, then those who follow that authority would consider it OK. That's exactly how most Western law systems work too. If you want to know if something is lawful, you ask a lawyer. If lawyers disagree, they go to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS decides certain way, then the law is this way. Well, maybe a bit different since Jews have no SCOTUS (then called Sanhedrin) anymore, so if rabbis disagree, they just disagree and their followers do different things.

> I understand you're being flippant

No, really I am not. You try to apply your criteria to the environment and the culture of which you don't know the laws, the customs, the motivations and the history, and you complain it doesn't work for you and you don't understand it. It's like coming to somebody's house, trying on their shoes and complaining they don't fit. Well duh, it's not your shoes, why would you expect them to fit?! For people that accept this culture, it works, if you're not part of it - it doesn't, but that's fine. It's not some criticism of you, it's just not meant to work in way you think it is meant.

> I'm just asking if religious people think that such a simple "trick" is really going to be accepted by God

Religious people don't think it's a "trick". You think it's a "trick" but it's your definition, so asking what they think about it is pointless - they don't think in the terms you do.

The Torah prohibits work on Shabbat, but only points out a few instances in the broadest terms. One of those is to not carry items "between domains", directly referenced in Exodus and Jerimiah, but again only a single passage in each instance. This was expanded upon in Talmudic works, which include an explanation of what exactly constitutes a public domain.

The eruv is not a loophole to "fool God". The eruv is a means to adjust the technical (or legal) definition of a public domain.

When one ensures that a community has a functioning eruv, that itself is part of Shabbat observance.

Here is a description of what this means for appliances: https://www.whirlpool.com/blog/kitchen/what-is-sabbath-mode.... It turns out I didn’t really understand how it worked! What I described is a feature, but I guess not a Sabbath mode feature

The accumulation of interpretation and rulings on various situations under the law means there's a thousand edge cases that have probably been brought up over the centuries and some ruling made. It all feels a bit like trying to rules lawyer god which is amusing to me as a TTRPG player but sounds exhausting if it were my real life.

[0] Though you also have to shut off the inlet water to the tank because the new water entering and being heated by the existing heated water (which you can use) counts as a violation. Source: https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/579/getting...

[1] https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/476/oven-ka...

This is probably one of the oldest traditions in Judaism, other than the Sabbath itself.

The Jewish lawyer stereotype didn't come from nowhere :)

1. of or relating to the Talmud (the collection of Jewish law and tradition)

2. characterized by or making extremely fine distinctions; overly detailed or subtle; hairsplitting.

It is extremely difficult to translate rules that were written thousands of years ago into guidance on modern life. Much of Jewish religious tradition has therefore embraced the debate, theorizing, and further definition of these rules into something that is more clear, logical, and can be practically applied by people who wish to follow them.

"Does electricity count as fire?" might seem like an arbitrary and non-sensical question to someone on the outside, but it is incredibly important to how a modern Orthodox Jewish person would practice their religion and they therefore need an answer to it. "Trying to rules lawyer god" through debate and writing on the subject seems like one of the better ways to reach a satisfying and conclusive answer to this style of question.

[1] - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/talmudic

[0] https://www.npr.org/2019/05/13/721551785/a-fishing-line-enci...

This is not the case. An Eruv is actually a beautiful example of the halakhic (translate: "Jewish law") process working as it's supposed to. Its implementation combines sharp hermeneutics with a sensitivity to the needs of real communities and a strong understanding of the meta-halakhic principles which drive the entire process

I'm not really sure if a sub- comment on HN is the right place to expand on this, but I'm happy to discuss it via some other medium.

I'm interested in subscribing to whatever that turns out to be.

Many of the decisions also require deep knowledge into the subject matter (not just the Jewish law) in order to make a ruling. To allow electric switches one would need to know all the intricacies of both Jewish law and electricity before a valid ruling could be made.

How exactly are Jews encouraged to "rules lawyer God?" Is it literally what you said: that God gave us brains, and he expects bus to use them? Where can I find out more about this? Is there some kind of "guide to Jewish law for goyim" I can check out?

For a small, partial start to your second question, check out this story: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oven_of_Akhnai (under the Story heading).

Note that the mystical and the magical elements of the story are often seen as the rhetorical flourishes and metaphors of the Talmud's storytelling style. The fundamental point is that even if a voice rang down from heaven declaring the law to be a certain way, a majority opinion among sages would overrule said voice. The Torah (law and teachings) was given to Jewish people, and it's now our job to interpret and wrestle with the particulars.

(I mentioned this is as a partial answer to your question, because there is a lot of nuance and further thought based on the idea. It does not, for instance, suggest an each-person-for-themself personal reinterpretation of the body of laws. It is more supporting the idea that as a society it is up to us to collectively define, refine, debate, and expand on these teachings.)

Your anecdote is the last in a series, describing a debate between Rabbis Eliezer and Joshua about the kosher status of the Oven of Akhnai (a clay oven which had been ritually polluted through proximity with a corpse, but was then broken up and remade). The first anecdote has Eliezer saying, "If I'm right, let that carob tree get up and move over there!". The tree did indeed uproot itself and move a substantial distance. His interlocutor retorted "pah, what does a tree know?".

In the last anecdote as you describe, Eliezer calls out to God to back him up, and indeed God booms forth, but Joshua replies, "it [the Jewish law] is not in heaven". That is, human law is for humans to interpret, not God. It amounts to an effective way to protect the system from wholesale change by new prophets who claim to be conveying the word of God.

All cribbed from David Friedman's _Legal Systems Very Different From Ours_, an absolutely fascinating book which I strongly recommend.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/484253/jewish...

These things you describe seem like a lot of work with not much result. Do you find it onerous to observe the rules you described?

It is considered heresy to view the Bible/Tanakh as the last word on a law. Instead, the Rabbinic derivations are seen as capturing the underlying intent of biblical law as it may actually manifest in real societal practice.

An example is the famous "take an eye for an eye" statement, which is interpreted Rabinically as referring to monetary compensation for damages. Actually seeking to physically harm someone in accordance to harm done to you is a gross violation of law.

Where can I look into your statement "It is considered heresy to view the Bible/Tanakh as the last word on a law."?

This is is a new idea that I had not heard before, and it would explain a lot of discussions I have had over the years if I understood it's source. (I keep the sabbath, annual holy days, but not the Jewish laws, so I have had some interesting discussions over the years)

For a bit more info I found this Quora question, which has some good answers: https://www.quora.com/Do-people-of-the-Jewish-faith-interpre... (Only the first 3-4 answers, after which the answers divert into jokes, and a very odd fire 'n brimstone answer.)

If you have a hot water urn, that is always on and doesn't receive new water, then consuming the water isn't usually an issue. You still need to double pour (put it in one cup then in a second to ensure it isn't hot enough to cook) but using it is OK.

If you have a large hot water tank, consuming the water IS an issue. Mostly because the moment that you consume the water, you can reasonably assume that cold water will enter the tank. Once cold water enters the tank, it will likely start heating. Thus, you become the agent that turns the heaters on in the tank. But, if the hot water was flowing BEFORE shabbat and you consume the hot water, your action does not directly affect the actions taken by the heating components. The heater is already on and using an extra amount of water has minimal impact on when the heaters turn off. Thus it is more allowed.

Light is about creation and less about the light than the means to get it. Switches create sparks internally, lights create heat (even LEDs), and you are completing a circuit. Completion can be seen as the final act of creation.

And lastly, cooking takes something from in-edible to edible. Creating food from non-food. Even on foods that are permissible to warm, they must be edible before hand. They also cannot substantially change form -- nothing too liquid or anything that would go from solid to liquid. With that framework, warming up a piece of left over baked chicken would be OK, whereas making a grilled-cheese sandwich wouldn't be OK.

That's wrong for 2 reasons. First of all, most/all major hospitals in Israel have a shabbat mode. The solutions are either to have many elevators, with only some of them stoping at every floor, and/or have a manual override. If someone presses a button it goes directly there, otherwise it goes floor by floor.

This is also a good compromise to let people follow their religious practices without imposing the impact from them on everyone else.

As long as "composition" of building is homogeneous, i.e. either totally religious or secular, Sabbath mode will be either on or off.

But it becomes tricky when into secular building move one or more religious families that request to turn Sabbath mode on. In best case scenario there are two elevators (required for buildings with more than 5 floors), so one of them will get switched to Sabbath mode (though bunch of people will be unhappy as electricity usage of building will go up + some inconvenience). If there is only one elevator, Greek drama might be a correct way to describe what happens.

edit: from the other side misery of lonely secular family in religious building where all elevators are in sabbath mode is real...

In reality (in Israel, in this case), many people come up with their own versions/interpretation/complications of Jewish law.

As anecdote, I knew one semi-religious family (masorati but coming from very famous ultra-orthodox lineage). They won't cook on Sabbath; they won't join friends to BBQ - because Sabbath and you can't make fire but they will operate all the other appliances and will drive around in car.

That said, I’m saddened to see how so many people are excited by these laws, when people who are forced to live by them in Israel suffer, as there’s only one kind of “true” Judaism followed here. They can and often are used for discrimination, hate towards minorities and significant limits of freedom about what you can do, who to marry, what to eat and more.

For example, someone here used “goyim” in its pure sense - someone not from the people of Israel. I’ve often seen it used as a hate word.

Goyim is also not a slur and refers in many instances ALSO to Jews, since it just means "nation."

Quit fibbin.

[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ev3gy/excerpt_from...

PS: I am linking to where I easily found a good quotation with enough context. It is not an argument for atheism.

Allowing electricity in Shabbat will completely change the Jewish life, and the amount of impact the community has on the individual.

There's another rule in the Halacha that says you must keep Shabbat different from any other day, that rule for example is one of the reasons you can't turn on your TV prior to Shabbat, and watch it without pressing buttons.

That's fine, I can respect that.

Jewish life 1000 years ago did not have people getting in elevators, so with this "hack" Jewish life has changed. I find working around the spirit of the law to keep within the letter hilarious.

In Passover you aren't allowed to own certain foods, you arrange a sale to a non-jewish person, you may still keep the foods locked in your house, at the end of Passover you purchase them back (You both know the sell was fictive).

Jewish traditions have fascinating ideas and principals, but also those ridiculous hacks.

you only think this because electricity was _already_ prohibited. Imagine a world where electricity was not prohibited on shabbat (as could very well be our world if the rabbis decide it so). We would not say "electricity destroys the spirit of shabbat" because not using electricity on shabbat is only part of the spirit after it's prohibited. The reason why it was banned in the first place, as far as I could tell, was that when electricity was new incandescent lightbulbs were basically its only common application (and those are obviously ma'avir [lighting a fire]), so the rabbis of the time gave a very generalized ban on electricity which stuck.

Given my digital-oriented profession and lifestyle, if it were not for the fact that all electronic devices are forbidden, I would find myself drifting back to work-related tasks ("oh, let's just see if this gets it to compile") to the point of losing Shabbat entirely. The blanket ban has saved my Shabbat and is part of the day's special distinctiveness.

The answer is that God is universal but the commandment to rest on shabbos was addressed only to Jews. https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/13447/is-it-a-di...

Was an Indiegogo and all.

For example, if the elevator is going down the passenger weight could increase the speed of descent marginally. This would mean the light indicating the floor number would change quicker than it would have done without the passenger being there. Therefore some authorities will only permit the Sabbath Elevator if it shuts off all indicator lights also.

>He did not care if i sinned i guess!!

doing work is only a sin for jews, not gentiles.

That is also true of a Paternoster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster_lift

Don't get me wrong, I 100 % respect anyone's right to go through all this, but I would personally hate to be part of this.

... that everybody, including the God who made the rules, understands are being violated. Can one actually believe that "haha, we pranked an all-knowing, all-powerful, vindictive deity" is the path to being considered righteous by that deity?

It seems logical to me, and I've never heard a reason it can't be done other than "that's defeating the point."

Which I admit, it entirely is, but I don't see it as any more "wrong" than encircling entire cities, and it's a whole lot simpler to maintain.

https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/The_Outside_of_the_Asylu...

oh since you're _so knowledgeable_ about jewish law I'm sure your opinion is very informed.

No, you can't do that. You can only put an eruv around a specific type of domain called a karmelis, in which carrying is only a rabbinic prohibition.

In fairness, the article itself as well as the Eruv article on Wikipedia linked here both make it seem that the whole point is to enact a kind of escape hatch to a rule that was found to be too strict to be workable in practice.

For example, Wikipedia:

> What constitutes a "public area" is debated. The strict opinion holds that any road more than 16 cubits wide is a public domain, while the lenient opinion holds that a public domain must have both 16 cubits of width and 600,000 people passing through the road on a single day. In practice, communities that build eruvin accept the lenient opinion.

In other words, it's only with the most lenient interpretation of the laws that this kind of escape hatch is even possible somewhere like Manhattan, and possibly not even there.

A typical American feeling is that rules are either important and should be upheld, or unimportant (or bad) and should be gotten rid of. The perspective behind eruvin seems (edit: based on the Wikipedia article, see replies) to hold that rules are important only in their most direct and legalistic version, and even then only to the extent that you can't weasel your way out of them. If that's the case, it's hard to say what's in principle wrong with the idea of a tiny eruv that the whole world is "inside", other than tradition.

yes exactly. There are rabbis (in particular I think a lot of sephardic rabbis because Maimonides was strict about eruv) who wouldn't carry in anything less than a walled city.

Sorry, the intent of my comment was actually not to state any kind of conception at all - rather, I wanted to indicate exactly why it is that most people are approaching it from this angle. I understand that none of the sources here are necessarily reliable, but the fact that they're the resources available to most people in the thread are the reason there's so much misunderstanding. (I've made a small edit to my comment to try to make this a little more clear.)

So what I wanted to get at was the fact that anyone reading the Wikipedia article would likely pick up on the obvious implication it contains that eruvin are an attempt to weasel out of a set of rules with legalism.

> They are an elegant extension of the rules that simultaneously uphold the letter and the spirit of the law in the face of changing circumstance.

I would be curious to learn more about this, if the process can be made clear to a non-Jew. For example, how does an eruv help uphold the spirit of the law? If the spirit of the law is what matters, one would intuitively think that you wouldn't need a symbolic "wall" around the community, because the distinction that counts (excluding public spaces) already exists, just not with a physical wall around it. Intuitively, one gets the impression that the wire only needs to exist in order to satisfy a specific rule that has been inherited but no longer matters very much for "spirit-interpretation" today.

As for why it is necessary to have the physical construction: Just as the law doesn't intend to forbid carrying everywhere, it doesn't intend to permit it everywhere. The actual existence of a physical boundary prevents the perceived permissibility of carrying from expanding constantly. Without it, there would need to be some other equally arbitrary seeming rule about what constitutes a single community.

I also think it is important to mention that both the spirit and the letter of the law are quite important. Even setting aside the question of the spirit of the law, they are still necessary because they are mandated in a legalistic sense.

Second, and I'm not trying to be snarky, just trying to understand: What is the limit on size? I understand there's a point where physically building and maintaining it isn't practical, but is still theoretically possible.

As for defeating the point, I'll admit I only somewhat understand that argument.

As far as I understand -- and I'll readily admit I do not have a great understanding -- the whole concept of the eruv is specifically designed to "defeat the point" of another rule (or set of rules).

Why is "defeating the point" considered to be "ok" or not "ok" based on scale?

Likewise, if "defeating the point" is wrong, why is it not always wrong?

Again, my intention is to understand, not to be snarky or otherwise inappropriate about it, and I'll apologize in advance if my questions cross lines I was unaware of.

God does not have a vendetta against elevators. God decreed specific sets of rules that make actions on the Sabbath forbidden, as interpreted by rabbis over the generations. When new situations arise the rules are applied to the new situation to see whether it is permitted or forbidden. Sometimes, like with elevators, the consensus is that the new situation is forbidden. In such a case, if there is good reason, the question becomes: "is there a way that we can tweak the situation so that it doesn't fall into the forbidden category?". For elevators, the answer is yes.

This still follows the spirit and letter of the law, because the spirit of the law really only applied to the reasons that made the elevator problematic in the first place and not to the whole concept of elevators.

A simple explanation is that God restricted Jews from 'work' that affects the world in certain ways on Shabbat in order that they should rest. For example, no building, or lighting fires. However, they can benefit from pre-existing fires or buildings.

Pressing the elevator button is akin to one of these forbidden effects (which one depends on a broad discussion about electricity on Shabbat), going against the injunction to rest. Walking in to the elevator and it moving automatically is more similar to benefitting from an existing fire.

While it may seem strange that pressing the elevator button is considered 'work', the answer to that is that the definition of work is directly related to the laws and not necessarily some external metric like effort. This means that the spirit and letter end up very closely related, but I think the distinction still exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster_lift

The title, the comments in https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/391bxv/paternoster_... for example all mention this.

See for example this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJBD1wf-YQ

In the very beginning, about one second in, you can see the static part of the floor going towards the cabin is a moveable board. Likewise, the "do not stand forward of this line" part of the cabin visible later is a flap that prevents the bottom of the cabin from squishing someone while going down.

The main risks are falling (note the gap between e.g. the entry floor board and the top of the cabin, or the floor of the cabin and the shaft wall), injuries from failed attempts to transport bulky items, and if you go through the top/bottom, there are gears that you can stick your hand into. But as long as you're not intentionally doing something stupid, there really is no reason to be terrified of them.

Now, a manlift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_manlift or man engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_engine... that's terrifying.

Action is (arguably) more important than thought in Judaism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

But the sanctity of life trumps virtually all of them, so you can almost always violate a commandment to save a life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh

https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.75a.2?lang=bi&with=all&lan...

definitely prohibited

EDIT: actually this gemara is an example of saving ones own life, so maybe not

An elevator that cycles between floors and one that only moves to a floor to pick up a passenger when they wait in front of the door might be indistinguishable from the perspective of the user. Would the difference matter?

What about showing the intent to exit the elevator at a particular floor by e.g. taking a step towards the door of the cabin and having the elevator detect that?

Telling a liftboy where to go seems to be ok. Now let us assume that it is quite a shy liftboy, so we grant his wish to have a privacy shield to hide behind while taking the passenger’s wish. Would it matter if we replaced him with a voice assistant if the passenger had no way of telling that?

My understanding as a Jew (though not Orthodox) is that you are forbidden from manually turning electrical devices on and off, and from altering the behaviour of a running device. So if you, say, accidentally turn on a stove just before the Sabbath starts, you then cannot turn it off until the Sabbath ends (or you get a non-Jew to do it for you).

> An elevator that cycles between floors and one that only moves to a floor to pick up a passenger when they wait in front of the door might be indistinguishable from the perspective of the user. Would the difference matter?

IANA rabbi, but I suspect this does indeed matter. In the former case the elevator is just doing the same thing over and over again, while in the latter case the user is actively controlling the elevator.

> What about showing the intent to exit the elevator at a particular floor by e.g. taking a step towards the door of the cabin and having the elevator detect that?

Again, I suspect this would be forbidden.

I will say, for the sake of combating misinformation about Judaism, that people who keep Shabbat traditionally, but also use voice activated technology on Shabbat are extremely rare, if they exist at all. I have never heard of someone who actually adheres to this practice despite living in a community that is on the extreme liberal end of Shabbat observant Jews[0].

[0] Which is where you would expect this to happen if it actually did.

If someone reading this keeps Shabbat traditionally and uses voice activated technology on Shabbat (or knows someone who does), please speak up. I would like to hear about your practice. Otherwise, I would prefer to avoid giving the impression that this is a position that anyone holds. There is far too much misinformation present in this thread already.

I agree that all historical attempts to associate electricity with particular melachot were not based on a full scientific understanding. Pinning the "fire" label on incandescent bulbs didn't really address the fundamental issue for all other appliances. As you mentioned, Rav SZ Auerbach would likely not have associated smartphone or laptop usage with uvdin d'chol.

However, I'm eminently thankful that the standard Orthdox practice has evolved to prohibit electrical appliance usage. I can see what Shabbat would have become otherwise, based on what Tisha B'Av is like. On Tisha B'Av, I make an effort to get into the spirit of the day, which means that I use my laptop for listening to (or watching) kinot and reading appropriate material. In the afternoon, when I'm worn out, I'll just "peek over" bat email -- and by then, the Tisha B'Av effect is shot.

If laptop usage were not forbidden, Shabbat would sadly become almost like every other day (at least for me).

On the flip side, I have enormous sympathy for the youth who keep "half Shabbat", i.e. they don't perform any major melachot, but they will use their smartphones. For many of them, social networks are an essential element of their daily life.

You can find accurate information at the Zomet institute https://www.zomet.org.il/eng/

It's not really right for Hacker News to debate Jewish Law during the shabbos in the U.S. when Jews aren't around.

Why not? It's true that religious topics have the potential for flame wars, and often don't match the goals of HN. Outside of HN, it's important for religion and culture not to be exempt from rational inquiry, both by insiders and outsiders. If religious or deep cultural discussion were only permissible when a devotee is present, then demonstrably problematic religions or cultures would have an unfair and biased insulating shield to maintain their problems under the guise of false decency.

But specifically in this case where a very prominent culture intersects with technology in a very unique way, why can't it be discussed from a technological and anthropological perspective, regardless of who is around, and whether they are either not a member of this culture, or they are violating their local time's sabbath by doing so?

The point is about the act of creation. Creation is the key point in just about all the laws. Turning on/off a switch, with intent, is an act of creation. Be it light, a spark, heat, or moving an elevator. Intent increases the severity of an action surely. Bumping into a light and turning it off, as long as it lacks intention, is more of an "oops, my bad" but you can't accidentally bump into it again. And if it's a common occurrence, you probably should address that issue since you know it will happen (you can't set someone up to fail).

> ... might be indistinguishable from the perspective of the user...

And yes, perspective matters, which is one of the reasons many observant avoid it. If you see someone in front of an elevator (or TV, for that matter), an outside observer would assume you're pressing buttons and breaking the law. Since others may not know about your clever work-around, it's better to avoid it, so they don't see you getting the benefits of the work-around and then doing it directly themselves. This avoids others saying "I saw an observant guy get in the elevator and part of an elevator is pressing buttons, so pressing buttons must be OK".

The door sensors of elevators are another problem. On many with a shabbat mode, they only activate right before closing the door, but it is easy to make a mistake and the doors will re-open. This is another reason they are avoided by many if possible.

> telling a liftboy where to go seems to be ok...

Telling a liftboy is not okay. You can't order someone to do something that they wouldn't have done on their own that you aren't permitted to do yourself. If you're forbidden from turning on a light, asking someone to do it turns them into your agent, which is the same as doing it yourself. But there, like many things, is a work around. If you handed someone a book for them to read, and it was dark, you know they will want to turn on the light. But since you're not asking them to turn on the light, you're asking them to read a book -- if they turn on the light, you have no agency in that action.

In the case of a lift boy or attendant, if you walked into the elevator and said something like "I live on the 7th floor" it's debatable if you intend for the person to press the button. If their job is to press the button, then it is an issue, if it is a non-employee, it's probably less of an issue. Even here, there are nuances like intent and context. If you're younger or more healthy, it's probably better to take the stairs. If you're in a high-rise and even healthy people would have issues taking the stairs, it's probably more permissible.

Then, even in a high-rise, if you're going down (which is easier) then maybe the context would be different enough were the same circumstances that permitted you to use it going up aren't available for going down!

As mentioned by others, the circumstances and context really matter along with the perspective of yourself and those around you. That is why there have been countless books and discussions on some seemingly simple matters.

Isn't this a little like arguing that by telling someone I know is a hitman a physical description of a target and where a large pot of money is buried I haven't intended for him to carry out a hit? I don't think that would hold up in court (especially if it could be shown that this was an established practice for setting up a hit).

Do religious laws work differently?

This is obviously the problem here. When you say to a gentile "it's dark in here", you're not actually telling them that you want them to turn on the light for you, when they do so it's their choice entirely. If you said "Anyone who turns on the lights will be paid", that would actually be prohibited. I think the following article is pretty good (https://www.halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Summary_of_Amir...).

If their apartment catches on fire would a very orthodox person be allowed to use an extinguisher / carry out some of their belongings?