Conference taveng::bagels

Disclaimer: This is not the opinion of an expert by any means.

I would think that the operation of the electric wheel chair for any reason
other than specifically health related (eating, using the toilet,...) would
be prohibited by strict interpretation.

I would also expect that being pushed in a standard wheel chair outside the
house would prohibited (unless there were an eruv).

However, it would certainly be a mitzvah to assist such a person by pushing
the wheel chair (or giving other assistance) as allowed by the above conditions.

Gavriel

I believe a person who needs a cane to walk can use one on Shabbat even
where there's no eruv.  I don't know if this applies to wheelchairs,
and I very much doubt if it applies to electric wheelchairs.

I have heard from reliable authorities that a wheelchair is, in fact, similar
to a cane for one who can't walk otherwise, as .2 suspected. IOW, just as the
cane is considered an extension of the body if it's necessary, the same would
be true of wheelchairs in more severe cases, and an *eruv* would not be 
necessary.

I have never heard of electric wheelchairs being permitted under any (normal)
circumstances.

Jem

Jem,

In the case of a cane and in many (most?) cases with a standard wheel chair,
the person is propelling themselves.  If the person is incapable of propelling
themselves in a standard wheel chair and requires pushing does .3 still apply?
Or is this situation like a baby stroller for which an eruv is required?

Gavriel

Re: .4

I looked up the topic in _Shemirat Shabbat Ke-hilchata_, which contains 
several paragraphs on the issue. I'll jot down some notes tonight and 
post them here IY"H tomorrow.

Jem

Re: .4

The reference in the book mentioned in .4 is chap. 34:27. The author is
stricter about wheelchairs than I had previously quoted from other sources,
requiring a _tzorech mitzva_, such as attending services in order to allow
the use of a wheelchair (non-motorized) on Shabbat. There are a number of
involved requirements which would effect the ruling, so an authority should
be consulted.

BTW, anyone seriously interested in Sabbath observance should have a copy
of this book. It is now available in English translation, under the title
"Shemirath Shabbath", in two volumes. The author is R. Y. Neuwirth.

Jem

    I am beginning to think that perhaps it is a good thing that Roy's
    mother is not real observant, since I can think of several
    non-life-threatening reasons why it would be a desireable thing for a
    wheelchair-bound person to be present in the synagogue.  For example,
    the person might want to be there in order to have a minyan present to
    say kaddish (even most not-very-observant people do not feel too good
    about hiring someone to say kaddish in their place, although I guess
    you could argue the point in a case like this).
    
    Now you have got me curious, though: does the book on strict Shabbat
    observance address the issue of the cane or walker, that someone
    mentionned in a previous reply?  I think I would tend to treat such an
    "appliance" as being in the same category as the leg brace one of my
    friends has to wear, the main difference being that Jeff's brace is
    "worn" since it straps to his leg, whereas a cane or walker might be
    considered to be being "carried" by the user of it.  Crutches fall into
    the same category - come to think of it, so do artificial limbs, I
    suppose: a person on crutches because they have lost a leg might be
    considered to be "carrying" the crutches, but if they are fitted with
    an artificial limb, I suppose they are "wearing" it, which might change
    the interpretation.
    
    /Charlotte

Re: .7

>    I am beginning to think that perhaps it is a good thing that Roy's
>    mother is not real observant, since I can think of several
>    non-life-threatening reasons why it would be a desireable thing for a
>    wheelchair-bound person to be present in the synagogue. 

As I mentioned in .6, for the purpose of attending services, every source I've
seen agrees that the person can wheel himself in a non-electrical wheel-chair
(BTW, this by no means allows anything else to be transported on the chair).
As far as others wheeling him/her, see the source or an halachic authority.

> does the book on strict Shabbat
>    observance address the issue of the cane or walker, that someone
>    mentionned in a previous reply?

As Gerald mentioned, this question is dealt with in the Shulchan Aruch in
chap. 301:17. If a person cannot walk otherwise, a cane is permitted. I
would assume the same would apply to a walker, crutches and certainly a
brace. 

Jem

What about people who have paralyzed legs but use electronic 
stimulation of their muscles in order to walk?  Would they 
have to get into a regular wheelchair in order to attend 
Shabbat services?

Could they use the device at home on Shabbat?  My concern is 
that not only does the device provide the muscle contractions 
necessary for walking, but it also strengthens and tones the 
muscles while the muscle contracts.  Paralyzed individuals with 
this type of device may not be able to "afford" to lose this day 
of "passive exercise" that non-paralyzed people do on an everyday 
basis including Shabbat.  It could adversely affect their health.

What do the laws say about risking one's health in order to 
observe Shabbat?

Sara

Re: .9

>What about people who have paralyzed legs but use electronic 
>stimulation of their muscles in order to walk? 

A question such as this depends very much on the specifics of the individual
situation, and should be addressed to a competent halachic authority.

Jem

    This discussion appears to be a case where the rules have not caught up
    with modern medical realities. To deny a handicapped person the tools
    to get around by Religious Law would be absurd!
    
    Eric

.11

Eric,

I would agree with you that to deny a person those tools is absurd.  However,
to regulate which tools may and may not be used under particular circumstances
is not.  One must keep in mind that, as far as halachic law is concerned,
keeping Shabbat is far more important than attending services (let's not get
into the discussion of whether that is an appropriate point of view).
Therefore, using tools which violate Shabbat to attend services is prohibited.
Using those same tools to survive or maintain one's health is not.  When the
distinction becomes unclear, that is when you call in a COMPETENT authority
(which I certainly am not) to help you draw the line.

Gavriel -- am aretz

    This is but one issue in which tools have come into being centuries
    after Halachic law was written, but some try to still apply one to the
    other. If some religious law prevents a handicapped person from getting
    around, then there is something very wrong with that Law.
    
    Eric

    I attended services at the "Great" Synagogue in Jersualem Shabatt
    almost two weeks ago.  They had a woman in a wheel chair in attendance
    and since the lift was non-operational she was allowed to sit in the
    men's section. Although it may have been for the Bar-Mitvah I would
    assume (dangerous word) that if they allowed it it would be acceptable
    almost anywhere else.
    
    Warren

    Re: .11, .13
    
    Eric,
    
    It's no secret that the vast majority of Jews are not strictly
    observant of traditional Jewish law, and I daresay that most
    of the participants in this conference would not claim to be
    observant in that way. However, there is still a modicum of
    *respect* shown by the contributors toward a system which they
    at least recognize as being at the heart of Jewish life for 
    many, many centuries. 
    
    However, when people use terms such as "absurd", making wild 
    presumptions and assumptions, I have to question what's really
    behind such overt hostility. Why do you have a need to prove
    the "absurdity" of Jewish law? Why is it so difficult to accept
    that for some, this body of law is *extremely* meaningful?
    
    Jem
    

The rules concerning Shabbat restrict an observant person from attending
services beyond walking range. If an observant person were restricted to an
electric wheelchair, I'm certain a minyan could be found to hold services in
that person's home. Face it, the rules for Shabbat restrict everyone.

Dave

    RE: .15, you wish to maintain the interpetation of Shabbat limitations
    which were written long ago and try to apply them to modern aids to the
    handicapped, while I view these aids as an extension of the body and
    therefore not applicable to these limitations. I may sound hostile at
    times, but I will always be hostile to those who try to limit the
    freedom of choice of individuals, especially in the areas of those who
    are handicapped. Are you saying that if a person is in a wheelchair and
    can only get down from their apartment via an elevator that they must
    stay trapped there for 24 hours of every week because of Shabbat
    restrictions? Bwecause if this is the case, then I want no part of such
    interpetations!
    
    Eric

    
    Re: .17
    
    >		  Bwecause if this is the case, then I want no part of such
    >interpretations!
    
    And which "interpretations" do you accept? As I mentioned previously,
    you are hardly the first one to express such opinions. But others
    know that there might be a part of the equation they might not have
    taken into account, and ask accordingly. But the belligerence and
    presumptuousness of your statements belies other possible motives.
    
    Jem
    
    

Re: .17

If you are a person that cares about such things, you would take care to live in
a building that has "Shabbos" elevator service (the darn thing automatically
visits every floor continually during Shabbat). It's no different than taking
care to live within walking distance of your shul if you really intend not to
drive on Shabbat.

Dave

    Actually, I think that our respective views of religion are the basis
    for our differences in view. I do not believe in blind obedience
    without a good reason, and so far, no religion has produced such that
    reason. There are moral ideals that I will follow as far as right and
    wrong, but I can not accept a rule for rules sake only, and this
    particular issue falls under that catagory. My view is that G-d gave
    man (generic) the ability to make choices and man has the right to make
    those choices. Since I do not feel that the "Law" is devinely written,
    anything in that document is open to those choices, since it was
    originally written by man. We are not discussing civil or criminal law
    here, which has powers of societal enforcement behind it, but religious
    law, with is based on religious beliefs ONLY! There are certain rules
    that must be maintained for a society to function and interact in a
    somewhat civilized manner, but many others serve no logical purpose
    except in the context of those who practice the faith from which the
    laws come from. I find such interpetations as no electric wheelchairs
    on Shabbat as rediculous as no fish on Friday's for Catholics (since
    changed) or no dancing for certain Christian fundamentalist sects.
    For those who wish to follow the letter of the law, then more power to
    them, but they have no right to try to pressure others to do the same,
    either overtly or via peer pressures.
    
    Eric

    RE: .17, but in both case, you are using the elevator! Creating a
    Shabbos Elevator is just bending the rules to make it look acceptable.
    Either you follow it or not. I have been criticized for wanting to
    change things, but at least I'm honest about my intentions.
    
    Your latter point about living near enough a synagogue is well taken
    though, but that option may not always exist in certain geographies
    where there may be only one synagogue to serve the whole town. I'm a
    realist and feel that current times require realistic answers, and not
    rules that were created before current situations were even a dream
    (or nightmare).
    
    Eric

Re: .20

> 	 and so far, no religion has produced such that
>    reason.

I was once having a discussion with a non-Jewish chaplain during annual 
training. He was trying to demonstrate his diverse ecumenical knowledge,
and mentioned that he had read the Quran, Talmud, as well as the writings
of Taoists, and Buddists. 

Duly impressed, I asked him if he could tell me something about tractate
_Berachot_, the first in the Talmud. He told me he had not read that one.
I then asked him which tractates he was versed in. The talmudic scholar 
suddenly couldn't produce the name of a single tractate!

Eric, perhaps you can name some of the works of ancient, classical and
modern Jewish philosophers you're currently studying. Or have you since
finished reading all the Jewish literature on the topic, and gone on to
other religions? 

(Likewise, perhaps you can provide a bibliography on the topic of the
"Shabbos elevator", which you expound upon profoundly in .21:

>							   Creating a
>    Shabbos Elevator is just bending the rules to make it look acceptable.)



>    For those who wish to follow the letter of the law, then more power to
>    them, but they have no right to try to pressure others to do the same,

Perhaps you should confront those who are trying to "pressure" you. If there
is such a person at your workplace, I believe there are personnel procedures
in place to deal with such matters. But what is your purpose in mentioning it
here? Do you feel that someone is pressuring you?

Does a call for strengthening Jewish education constitute psychological
manipulation? In that discussion, you were glibly prepared to write off
40% of our people! Before I saw you say that, I had only heard similar 
statements from anti-Semites! What's *really* on your mind, Eric? 

(As a courtesy, I would ask that you quote the section you're answering,
so we don't have to guess. Thank you.)

Jem

RE: .22,
    
>(Likewise, perhaps you can provide a bibliography on the topic of the
>"Shabbos elevator", which you expound upon profoundly in .21:

>>							   Creating a
>>    Shabbos Elevator is just bending the rules to make it look acceptable.)

    Shall we play education semantics here or get down to the point without
    the games. What is the difference on using an elevator if its automatic
    or someone pushes the buttons manually? My point is that you're taking
    a rule, created centuries before elevators were invented, and then
    TRYING to fit it to modern times, which is INTERPETATION, pure and
    simple! How would you approach the case of a quadraplegic, who can't
    "speak" except through the use of a computer, activated by his breath
    (such devices do exist today). Shall we tell him that because he has to
    use a machine to communicate, that he should be silent for one day a
    week? (Specific answer here please).
    
    
    > But what is your purpose in mentioning it here? Do you feel that someone 
    > is pressuring you?

    My purpose is to show that some contributors here see their way as the
    only "correct" way in these areas.
    
    
    >Does a call for strengthening Jewish education constitute psychological
>manipulation? In that discussion, you were glibly prepared to write off
>40% of our people! Before I saw you say that, I had only heard similar 
>statements from anti-Semites! What's *really* on your mind, Eric? 

    
    It could constitute manipulation (key word is could), if you view
    education as only presenting your view as correct. How would you handle
    those who will still question the validity of that viewpoint? The 40%
    that you claim I "glibly prepared to write off" were those who have
    made their own decision to go in a direction different from the one
    that you approve of. I view religion to be a PERSONAL belief, and as
    such, only the individual can make that decision for him or herself.
    That person has just as much right to choose Judaism as any other faith
    that makes them comfortable and complete.
    
    Your last sentence is almost laughable, if you weren't serious. Do you
    view anyone whose view does not support your perspective of what is
    "right" for the Jewish people an anti-semite? Or does someone who
    questions your beliefs viewed as a threat to you? I view all faiths as
    equally valid to the individual believer, regardless of what his
    parents practiced. There is no one "True Belief" any more than there is
    one right language or one correct race to be part of. Religious bigotry
    is no better than any other form!
    
    Eric

    Re: .22 et prior:
    
    You really are unable to see religion, the observance of religion, the
    credentials for validation of belief systems, the motives of people who
    want to reconcile Jewishness with religion, in anything other than the
    terms of the belief system you personally hold. Although I understand the 
    reason you feel this belief system is the only legitimate one (in your 
    belief system, your belief system is divinely mandated), there are others 
    who have different belief systems. Furthermore, the notion that in order
    for my belief system to be validated, it must be supported by your
    belief system (i.e, what is your source for having the belief system
    for electric wheelchairs, Shabbat elevators, etc) only proves my point.
    
    My belief system, what I perceive to be the belief system of Eric
    Feinsmith, and certainly the belief system of a lot of people I know,
    (who, incidentally, are staying within the "fold", a practice of which I
    believe you would approve, judging by previous notes), are based on the
    principle of "what is meaningful for me", based on my feelings about
    religion, ethics, morality, observance, etc. If you can't accept this,
    don't accept this. However, don't you dare call me anti-Semitic because
    I have a different Jewish belief system than you. That, my friend, is
    your problem, not mine.
    
    Dick Rosenberg

    Evidently I was writing .24 as Eric was writing .23. I stand by .24.
    
    Dick Rosenberg

 Re: .23
    
    >Shall we play education semantics here or get down to the point without
    >the games.
    
    Why don't we get to the point: you're not really asking a question
    here. If you were really interested in answers to this kind of
    question, you probably would have asked *before* you converted to
    another religion. So, indeed, let's drop the games!
    
    Jem
                  

    Speaking as a non-religious non-Jew, I think this situation
    is pretty clear:
    
    If you believe the rules are divinely given, and you want to
    follow them, then you can't use an electrically driven wheelchair
    or a talking machine, or an elevator.  The rules don't have to
    make sense to you, nor do they have to make middle-class life 
    in the U.S. in the 1990's easy.  That's not what they're for.
        
    If you don't want to follow them or don't believe they are
    the real rules, that's your choice, but you also can't argue
    with those who disagree--it's none of your business what they
    do.
    			-John Bishop

Re: .27

Very often, it's the outsider who can put things in perspective. You 
express the issue clearly and succinctly. 

The reason I am particularly irritated in this situation is that a specific
question about Jewish law was raised. Emotional responses attacking Jewish
practices in general as "absurd" and "bigotry", are simply totally out of
place. Once again, the questions can and *should* be asked, but when posed
in that way, with such hostility, the questions *themselves* become immaterial;
they are simply an excuse to attack Judaism in any way.

Not re: .27

With all the talk of "freedom of religion", some people seem to feel very
uncomfortable whenever the traditional Jewish viewpoint is presented, and 
would much prefer it to be suppressed. 

Jem

    RE: .27, and in the same light, neither does anyone have the right to say
    what is right or not to anyone else. We are all entitled to our beliefs
    and unless they had a PERSONAL conversation with G-d, they have no more
    right to exclusivity of truth that anyone else does!
    
    RE: .26, I was wondering how long before you tried to bring this
    discussion down below the academic level it was semi-remaining at!
    The questions I have brought up are quite valid, but you seem to be
    unable or refuse to discuss them head on. The fact that I have chosen
    Unitarian-Universalism as my personal faith doesn't change these
    points. Though I was born caucasion, does this discredit my opinions on
    black issues? I can only see you making an issue out of my personal faith
    as an attempt to do just that on Jewish issues.
    
    This choice was made after DECADES of careful consideration, rather than 
    parroting of blind dogma. What you fear, Jem, is that your
    small view of the Jewish world may not be all perfect, but you can't
    face discussing that possibilities from an OBJECTIVE viewpoint. Any
    other view is a threat to you because it means that other people have
    the capability to reason within themselves what is right for them.
    
    You were right about one thing in our discussions during DUIT a while
    ago. Growing up on Long Island gives one a very warped view of Judaism and
    Jewish life. It also can give a very closed minded attitude to anything
    that is different from what you were taught as a child. You are so
    blind to anyone elses beliefs, that the mere mention of someone
    choosing a different path makes your back go up. I saw no real need to
    bring up what house of worship I currently attend because we were
    discussing issues here, and at that level, if I attend a Synagogue or
    Church, or even a Mosque is not what we are discussing. I have
    contributed to the various discussions because I've been there, and
    know what real soul searching is. Quoting Scriptures or Talmud will do
    nothing to strengthen your point OBJECTIVELY. It proves that you have
    studied your religion's teachings well, which I will give you credit
    for, but to use this as your only basis for your argument is faulted,
    because there is no objectivity in the discussion.
    
    I am going to ask you one simple question, which I request a direct
    answer to. Do you feel that your observence level of Judaism is the
    only valid one in existance? In other words, are less observent Jews
    wrong and only your level "right". No beating around the bush is request-
    ed, just a straight yes or no answer will suffice.

    Bigotry is a sad thing because it is blind. It can be blind feelings
    against someone of a different color, or different nationality, or
    different religion. All of these have one thing in common, that of
    disliking something that is DIFFERENT, and only because it is different.
    You seem to be unable to discuss the above issues with me because I have
    basically rejected what you believe, not that they are wrong to you, but
    because they are wrong for me. In our discussions, you are perfectly
    willing to allow sexism in religion, even going as far as finding role 
    stereotyping acceptable. Points on this issue were brought up in a
    different note in bagels, but you sidestepped them, so I ask them again,
    is refusing women the right to be ordained as a rabbi or counted in a
    minyan right? I have brought up many valid points where modern circum-
    stances and ancient religious Law clash, but again, you sidestep these
    issues also. 

    Earlier, you said that I was willing to write off the 40% of Jews who
    intermarry. I prefer to look at this issue as 40% of the Jews in this
    country could not find enough comfort in the religion of their parents
    to keep them. If 40% of a department in Digital were to leave tomorrow,
    would management say that all those people were wrong, or would they look 
    at what in the institution made them want to leave. You keep wanting to 
    take the first approach, which would be as unrealistic as if management
    did the same.

    Sorry that this reply is so long, but it must cover many issues. This
    discussion started out on a fairly high plane and slowly, but surely slid
    downward, till it became an attempt to discredit my views because I have
    chosen a different religion than you have. The big difference between us
    is that I accept peoples of all faiths, be theirs the same as mine or
    different. Their beliefs are as valid and true to them, as mine are to me,
    or yours are to you. Can you say the same?

    Eric

Eric,

I would like to think that I am somewhat impartial in this (not being Orthodox
nor particularly rigorous in my observance).  And it really looks to me like
you came in looking for a fight.  This conversation started as a discussion of
the halacha surrounding a specific set of circumstances.  The purpose was to
understand what the halachic rules were that applied and some of the principles
which might affect their application.  You came in and started attacking the
validity of the basic framework in which these rules applied.  From where I
sit, it looks like you can't leave those who follow or wish to discuss halachic
Judaism alone.

This is a general request (with my moderators hat on) if you wish to have a
discussion about the relevance of halachic law (or about the merits of opting
out of Judaism or any of a number of controversial topics) please open a new
base note or respond in an on going conversation who primary topic is
consistent with your reply.  Please show the courtesy of not interupting every
topic with your denigration of those who take a strict view.

Jem,

I think that you could also try to refrain from dragging down conversations in
similar manner.  Not every ill in the Jewish community is related to lack of
observance on the part of the majority of American Jews (though some arguably
are).

(Moderators hat back off).  I really do enjoy and appreciate the access to
informed discussion of various issues (halachic, historical,...) and get very
upset when people drag every discussion through the mud.

L'hit,
Gavriel

    My problem is not with the practice of halachic Judaism by those who
    desire to, its when those who do practice it wish to make it the
    standard by which ALL Jews are judged by. Each person has the right to
    worship how they wish and can choose the level of observence that is
    the most comfortable for them, but no single group has the right to
    enforce THEIR standards on everyone else (i.e. changing the Law of
    Return, etc).
    
    Since my last reply was relocated as a new note (#869), it may be
    helpful to point out that it refers to two previous replies in this
    note (.26 and .27). That particular linew of debate will be continued
    in its new home.
    
    Eric