Talk:Shabbat/Archive 1

Positive Miswoth

Hi, I added some stuff about the positive commandments and inyanim of Shabbat but my Wikipedia format knowledge isn't so great, so someone may want to clean it up. I'll probably learn more about formatting Wikipedia and then make more changes. -Avraham

The first thing to do is register a user name for yourself! I'll try to fix up the section you added. The part about biblical/rabbinic is, in my opinion, not relevant to this article. But nice addition nonetheless. Shalom, DLand 06:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Shabbat vs. Sabbath

Shouldn't this be moved to Sabbath, or else Sabbath made a redirect here? --Brion 00:50 Oct 18, 2002 (UTC)

It could be. I've been working on this page to specifically refer to the Jewish Sabbath concept. I was thinking that the more general Sabbath article could be developed to discuss the biblical origin of the holiday, and a brief overview of how it is interpreted in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and perhaps in other cultures. Then there would be a link to this particular entry (Shabbat) for details on the Jewish understanding of the day. When more details are written on the Christian or Islamic view of this day, these could be developed into their own separate entries as well. As things currently stand, the two articles are short enough to combine. I am just envisioning that as they grow longer, the separation will become more useful. RK

I don't think that we need a disambiguation block, since the Christian and Pagan holidays are never called "Shabbat". Or am I wrong? Toby 18:10 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

Removed. Toby 05:04 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Since there can be lengthy debates over man's relationship with Shabbat and over examples of Shabbat prohibitions, such as picking up corn to eat on Shabbat, I see no reason why the two articles should be combined. If anything else, the current "Sabbath" article should be combined with the disambiguations, such as references to the notorious Black Sabbath music group.

-- Darth Sidious, 18:28 PST, Feb 14/06

Deletion of debate

"12 hour" debate deleted by anonouser. Because it's long and not directly relevant to this article, I'm leaving a pointer here, rather than reverting or creating an archive in the article's namespace. Mkmcconn 18:02, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Adaptation of Islam for Sabbath

The following statement is not factual and tries to imply a Judaic centrality in Islam: "Subsequently, with the advent of Islam Friday...that may be derived from the practice of having market days on Friday in the Middle East in preparation for a 'Sabbath'"

The Day of Rest is a Judeo-Christian concept in remembrance of God resting after creating the heavens and earth. This idea is not accepted in Islam as the implied need for God to rest, is contradictory to the concept of an All-Powerful being. In reference to the creation of the heavens and earth, the Qur'an states:

"Your Guardian Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days*, then he settled Himself on the Throne..." (Quran: Surah Al-A'raf (The Heights) verse 54)

Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali: "But lest we should be obsessed with the Jewish idea that Allah rested on the seventh day, we are told that the Creation was but a prelude to Allah's work: For His authority is exercised constantly by the laws which He established and enforces in all parts of His creation."

• • • • • Little nuances like these are results of misinterpretations, or simple ignorance of the matter. Jews do not believe that God needs to sleep or rest. Isaiah 40:28-29

• It is my understanding that the work God did was not hard work. He simply said and the Universe obeyed. What is translated as rest is simply ceasation from creative work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiKeeper (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

     'Do you not know? 
      Have you not heard? 
      The LORD is the everlasting God, 
      the Creator of the ends of the earth 
      He does not grow tired or weary, 
      and his understanding no one can fathom. 

      He gives strength to the weary 
      and increases the power of the weak.'

Other Sabbaths

The paragraph "other sabbaths" is very poorly written. I don't know the subject well enough to rewrite it but someone should. --zero 08:23, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That is some leftover material from anonymous user <134.124.144.44> , who introduced some creative understandings of the Sabbath should be. Despite a few attempts to learn who held these views, we never succeeded. It seems to be his own conclusions. Like the other material contributed by him, it is best removed, as Wikipedia encyclopedia articles should not contain original research or unique views. RK 16:18, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)~

The Sabbath mentioned in Leviticus 23:32 is not the seventh day Sabbath, but an annual twenty-four hour Sabbath that takes in parts of two days. It begins on the evening of the ninth day and ends the following evening on the tenth day (Atonement). This Sabbath like the land Sabbath of Leviticus chapter 25 is more than one day in duration. A Sabbath is not limited to a single day. In fact it can be over 300 days long (Leviticus 25:4). This is the only annual Sabbath that is 24 hours in length. God calls the evening before the Day of Atonement the ninth and not the tenth day as it would be called if a new day began at sunset. 34.

Playing with pets

Spending time with one's pets

Dear RK, I think this newly inserted paragraph is just utterly confusing. Can you state which posek gave guidance to the Modern Orthodox community on how to play with your pets in a manner that conforms to halacha? In absence of this, I suggest this matter is left alone. JFW | T@lk 17:45, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've now rephrased the contended bit to sound less radical. IMHO it's not a compliment to say that Modern Orthodox authorities "disregard" elements of halakha.
JFW | T@lk 22:25, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reform Sabbaths

I think we need to explicate Reform positions on Shabbat observance, and also differentiating between Conservative and Orthodox halacha. I promise ot help work on it if others will. :)--Savant1984 07:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this topic should be discussed, but I don't know enough to help. -Reuvenk_[T][C] 17:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Christian Observance of Jewish Sabbath

The mention of Christians changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is not entirely true. Roman Catholics changed it (the New Testament gives no instruction to change the 4th Commandment [of which is an eternal covenant) during the 3rd-4th centuries. Although the Roman Catholics became the predominant Cristian church, it wasn't the only one. There have always been Christians (like the Waldensians) and beginning in the 1800's, the Seventh Day Adventists that keep the Sabbath.

Perhaps a note that wouldn't group all Christians as keeping Sunday, or a reference that states that the Catholic Church changed the day, but there are still Christians observing the original Jewish Sabbath.

DM

The above statement about the Roman Catholic Church moving the Sabbath is false. The Gospel of John indicates very clearly that day 8 of the week is the apocalyptic day since that was when Christ rose. The disciples worshiped on the day after the Sabbath because of that, which they called "The Lord's Day." This was all predicted in Leviticus with the wave offering. What documentation is there that says Rome changed the Sabbath?Nketchen 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jewish believers may not be happy about it, but there are "Hebrew Christians" who seek to retain the Jewish observances of their ancestors, including Shabbat, while acknowledging Jesus as Messiah. This might make inaccurate the statement that Shabbat is not observed in the Jewish way within the Christian religion (depending on whether you regard them as a Hebrew sect of Christians, or a Messianic sect of Jews). 193.63.239.165 10:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration

The word is written in Hebrew with no long vowel (alef) and a single bet (with no shadda, or the equivalent in Hebrew), shouldn't that make the transliteration Shabaṯ --Alif 10:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Alif: The letter bet contains a dagesh hazaq, which is the Hebrew equivalent of a shadda. It takes the form of a dot in the center of a letter, but is not usually written except in religious texts and books for beginners, including children's literature. Also, note that alef is not a vowel in Hebrew, but a glottal stop equivalent to the Arabic hamza.

Speaking as a Mizrahi Jew with Teimani pronunciation, I can tell you that the alef is not pronounced as a gottal stop: ayin is. But all that is irrelevant, common practice it to spell it Shabbat or Shabbos, and as Wikipedia seems to adopt Modern Israeli Hebrew over Ashkenazi Hebrew (which I find surprising) on religious matters, Shabbat seems in my eyes to be correct. kol tuv, Avraham.

‘Ayin is not a glottal stoip in classical Sephardi and historical Ashkenazi Hebrew, but either a voiced pharyngeal fricative or a velar nasal. Alef with niqqud is a glottal stop in classical Hebrew, but the glottal stop is often not pronounced anymore. -- Olve 10:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Encouraged and permissible activities

I've modified some of the items on this list:

• The "sex on Shabbat" item was confusingly worded — was there really a need to say that a couple should have sex in privacy? (Also note that the practice is not purely kabbalistic in nature.)
• The digression on Jewish vs. secular fiction is not directly related to the topic of Shabbat, and would be better suited to a general discussion of halakhah. (Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a kiruv manual.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by FlourDustedHazzn (talk • contribs)

The entry about intimacy on shabbos is probably in error. The mitzvah of propagation is mostly fulfilled by getting married (one of several reasons for doing so), while this mitzvah is usualy refered to as "mitzvas onah", especialy as if it were doubled with mitzvas peru urvu, then one would not get a double mitzvah after one had two children (sic) unless one had a triple mitzvah beforehand. That said, I'm too impatient to look up the reference. (note: mitzvas onah is commonly refered to by the euphamism of "making one's wife happy".) 74.138.78.83 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Shomer Shammas

I haven't seen the movie, but is that what he actually says? If so, we should put (sic) after it. --Savant1984 06:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

{{Torah portion}}

FYI: (1) The central part of Jewish services on Shabbat in synagogue is the cantillation of the Torah reading for that week's Parsha (Torah portion) and it is also usually the basis of the rabbi's sermon and the source of classes and lectures during the week. Bar Mitzvah celebrations often involve the reading of the weekly Torah portion on Shabbat in synagogue by the Bar Mitzvah boy (or girl in non-Orthodox settings). (2) The template {{Torah portion}} is at the bottom of the Shabbat article's page, so essentially it's part of the "See also" section which is a legitimate way of connecting related and connected topics on an article. (3) If a reader finds the {{Torah portion}} to be "too intrusive" then any reader is free to click "Hide" on the top right section of the template's heading which shrinks it to an unobtrusive one liner. Finally, (4) the {{Torah portion}} is presently diligently updated weekly by User:Dauster early each Sunday so that any readers may learn more about the weekly Parsha. User:Dauster summarizes each week's Parsha and adds some interesting graphics which surely adds life and color to a page that may gain the attention of readers who don't know much about this subject and may want to learn more. Please refer all further comments and discussions to one centralized location at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Template: Torah portion Thank you. IZAK 08:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Shabbat vs. Shabbos

I switch all the remaining Shabbos to Shabbat to avoid confusion and for concisity. Epson291 07:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think adding a small etymology of the pronounciation of Shabbos, talking about the differences in sav and tav could be a good idea. Epson291 07:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a preemptive comment to those who object to User:Epson291's edit, although Wikipedia does not "favor" the Sephardi pronounciation over the Ashkenazi one or vice versa, it is important that while the article is entitled "Shabbat" we should be consistent with that spelling throughout the article. --DLand^TALK 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask most English speaking Ashkenazic Yidden(A large percentage of English Speaking Yidden) It is Shabbos, not Shabbat. Even my sefardic Rebbeim and teachers say Shabbos. SO, it would make sense to be shabbos not shabbat. --Shaul avrom 01:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting the non-encyclipedic part

Someone added a lengthy halachik discussion that looks like it belongs in an artscroll halacha book, its way too into minutiae to keep on wikipedia for people who dont even know what shabos is, so im deleting it. Wikipedia itself says its not written in proper enclyclipedia format.someone please write something that a beginner can relate to, basic concepts of shabat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.212.46 (talk)

Never an obligation to include meat

This article included a strange statement, "While general practice is that these meals include meat, there is not a strict obligation to do so as there is on Yom Tov." There is, in fact, never an obligation to include meat on Yom Tov or at any other time, even at the Pesach Seder, where vegetarians often use a roasted beet for the Korban Pesach. There is a strong minority vegetarian tradition in Judaism, so it's preposterous say that there's an ever obligation to include meat. Also, the Yom Tov article makes no mention of any such obligation. However, among non-vegetarians, it is common to include meat in the first two Shabbat meals. Therefore, I removed the strange statement, but inserted "which are usually meat meals" at the end of the following sentence. NYC JD reverted my change. I await a discussion on this point, without which I will restore my change based on the explanation I provide here. Anomalocaris 08:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Meat and wine are required on Shalosh Regalim as part of the mitzvah of "ve'somachto be'chagecho", Deut. 16:14. As to the Shabbos meals, the general practice - thought not codified anywhere AFAIK - is to eat meat the first two meals. Korban Pesach? You eat Korban Pesach on Passover? God help you! The temple has been in ruins for a while now.

I hadn't "reverted" you per se - I just restored the status quo after an unexplained removal of a chunk. But I do oppose. - NYC JD (make a motion) 12:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The commandment וְשָׂמַחְתָּ translates "rejoice, be happy" not "serve meat"! It would make a vegetarian unhappy to eat meat, which would violate the commandment! 2. My modification of the sentence following the one I removed handles the general practice. 3. According to Passover — Korban Pesach "Many Sephardic Jews, however, have the opposite custom of eating lamb or goat meat during the Seder in memory of the Korban Pesach." But that is not my point. My point is that the one time and place where one might think there would an obligation to include meat — The Korban Pesach on the Seder plate — there is no requirement and vegetarians use a roasted beet instead. In short, there is no obligation to include meat with any meal. 67.101.102.116 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be very interested in knowing the source for the leniency that a person can eat a roasted beet in lieu of the Korban Pesah. Jon513 13:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a minhag to have meat for most meals. I don't understand why the two loaves were removed. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Meat

I'm getting rather tired of the vegetarian activism here. I have now made the article as NPOV as possible, namely by stating that traditionally meat or fish are served. That should satisfy all opinions. I'm fully aware of the enormous repositories of spin at the disposal of pro-vegs, but one cannot escape the notion that Judaism has traditionally regarded meat as a celebratory dish, and the majority of Orthodox Jews certainly still see it this way. This page is not the right place to open a large debate on whether vegetarianism is a Jewish ideal. JFW | T@lk 09:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

vast majority. hear hear. - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 14:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Special Refrigerator light-lock

I once lived in Israel for a year between 1996-1997 and I noticed that the refrigerator in our apartment had a special latch attached to the button controlling the refrigerator-light. During the Shabbat, or so I was told by our landlord, the latch was put in place thus hindering the fridge from lighting up and thus violating the rule about using electrical equipment. Though I'm not sure how they accounted for the fact that the fridge itself, light or not, is electric. I would add this to the article but I cant actually give any source other than my own, just thought I'd mention it though. :-) Fred26 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was okay for electric things to run on their own (just as it's okay for candles to burn on their own), what's problematic is turning the light on (by opening the door) and turning it off again (by closing the door). —Angr 13:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Angr is correct. Most people are just worried about the light bulb that comes on when you open the door. It seems, however, that opening the door triggers other circuits. Hence, this latch locks out the entire switch.

Mechanisms programmed before Shabbat (e.g. thermostats, hot water urns, hotplates on time switches) are permissible to use, unless other rules are also violated (such as washing the entire body by taking a hot bath). JFW | T@lk 17:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Permitted Activities

Surely 'Permitted Activities' and 'Activities that are Encouraged' are different things? I'm not an authority on such things, but I would have thought that the title for this part would be better as 'Encouraged Activities' or some such. --Sithemadmonkey 00:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is subtle, but many "encouraged" activities are more or less mandatory, while the permissible ones are exactly that. JFW | T@lk 17:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Shev

Is this really true?

The Hebrew word Shabbat comes from the Hebrew verb shavat, which literally means "to cease," or shev which means "sit."

I do not doubt that שב (or the infinitive לשבת, if I remember correctly) means "to sit". But I do not think that it is etymologically related to Shabat. Sources? --Austrian 17:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that part of the sentence, seeing as I've never heard of such a thing either.--DLand^TALK 18:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Obviously there are more than one pronunciations, but some IPA would be useful. 68.145.207.92 05:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Practice of permissible things

Do practicing jews actually observe some of things that seem ridiculous like not being allowed to turn on a light switch or make a thread with 2 or more loops? Is it really possible in practice to obey ALL of these things? I mean, some of these things are a necessity and if you don't do them something awry is bound to happen

Yes, practicing Jews observe many things that seem ridiculous (by the way, I never heard you weren't allowed to make a thread from 2 loops - where did you get that information?)- and certainly many go overboard in their meticulousness, but some Christian and Muslim beliefs and/or practices are equally, if not more, loony. --Gilabrand 08:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

These things may be highly technical, but they're not ridiculous. They have a solid basis in the Bible. And yes, it's certainly possible to obey "all" these things. I did it just yesterday. -- Y not? 12:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

For many people, many religious practices are ridiculous. For the people who practice them, they are obviously not so or they wouldn't practice them. But this is not the place for such a discussion Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What things exactly would "go awry" by observing Shabbat? And have you read the sections devoted to exceptions in case of illness etc? JFW | T@lk 17:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Someone added {{unreferenced}} again, even though most statements are sourced inline to Torah, Mishnah and Poskim sources. However, some of this may well be converted to cite.php.

What does need referencing is some material that I wrote many moons ago. These are rather sweeping generalisations with regards to Melacha, Toldah, Shevut etc. I suspect the best source for this would be the Sefer ha-Chinnuch or Hirsch' Horeb, but I am open to suggestions before I add those as sources. Both the Chinnuch (in Chavel's translation) and Horeb (Grunfeld) are available in English and therefore more suitable than a purely Hebrew source of similar import. JFW | T@lk 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Things which over-ride shabbos observance

I would like to add a list of things which over-ride shabbos observance. Not all of them come to mind at present but I will start a list here and add to it with the intention of adding it to the article later. Chesdovi 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Doche Doireyso:

• Sacrifical service at the Temple in Jerusalem
• Pikuach nefesh
• Brit Milah
• Korban Pesach
• Lulav on first day
• Shofar
• Honouring parents

Doche shabbos Mi'Drabbonon

• Redeeming land in Israel (Gittin 8b)
• Taking an oath to repay money and inadvertantly the date turns out to be on shabbat, he can take money and repay his debt.

• • Shofar? Lulav? Are you serious? -- Y not? 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No! I thought midoreisah it was doche and that nowadays it was a gezeiras chachomim, but have clarified that min hatorah shokeling and blowing is mutar. Chesdovi

Subsets of melochos

We should probably mention the several categories in which the 39 melochos are divided (e.g. sidura de-pas). Anyhave have a source for this subdivision? JFW | T@lk 17:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is not the place for subsets and Talmudic controversies. --Gilabrand 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Motzei Shabbos?

I didn't see any mention of motzei Shabbos, or Melavah Malkha. I guess there is a Havdalah article . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.63.24 (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Creative activity"

80.74.97.155 (talk · contribs) and Ewawer (talk · contribs) have been adding that all melachos are "creative activity". This is a commonly heard nugget in yeshiva and in talks for communities, but how true is it? Many melachos have no creative element at all - borer is separating chicken bones from your Friday night chicken; how creative is that? I believe "creative activity" is a mistranslation of "melechet machshevet", which has nothing to do with being creative but with intent. Opinions invited, but I don't think we should be perpetuating an erroneous translation. JFW | T@lk 10:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As you note, the idea is a "commonly heard nugget", which means it's a point of view that has to be included if reliably sourced and can't be batted down because an editor on his or her own say-so thinks others wrong. It's got a perfectly good pedigree as a theological and homoletic interpration - Because the concept of Shabbat is based on ceasing from creation of the world ("for in six days HaShem created the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he ceased and rested") the kinds of activities one can't do on shabbat are theologically and homoletically related to creation. Moreover, the quintessential figure of Mishkan construction was Betzalel, the paradigmatic artist. The mishkan and Temple were intended to help realize the creative and artistic aspirations of the Jewish people. Building a Mishkan is a creative act; ceasing from building it is to cease being creative. So although when one translates the melachot into precise formulas one gets activities which in isolation don't seem to be very creative, taken as a whole the interpretation is not unreasonable. Understanding the malachot of shabbat as creative acts helps articulate their relationship both with the creation of the world and with the building of the Temple and thus helps clarify their religious significance. It seems to me that you are attempting to fit a homiletic (creative) interpretation into a box that's too linear and prosaic for the situation. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) and wish to add that the element of creativity is the main point of the prohibition. It is not the work element. And without that element the activity would not be prohibited. As I have said, this element may not be obvious, but it is critical.Ewawer (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My problem is: (1) We can't use a word first and then start redefining it to suit our needs; (2) there is still no source. If you can't define the term properly, how critical is it exactly? I think we need to agree on a better translation of "melechet machshevet" and I have boldly tried a different format. If you disagree, please revert me but discuss how we're going to resolve this. JFW | T@lk 09:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to tighten up some of the wording. I hope this goes some way to meeting your objections. I feel that a word such as "creative" is important, because without that word there is no significance or purpose to the Shabbat restrictions, whether a person accepts the result or not. Otherwise, you will need to explain what is the meaning of "work", as it applies to Shabbat, without using the rabbi's list, which is based on the analogy of creation. The only issue is how to explain the outlook in a non-religious, non-doctrinaire manner.Ewawer (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ewawer, your new version had exactly the same problems, and I want to you to try a bit harder at getting this right. You want to say that there is a unifying idea behind all melachos, and you say that this is "creative activity" before going on to define "creative" as "changing the state of something". Yet if you look at the list of melachos there are several that are neither creative nor change any state whatsoever (and I remind you again of borer). Also, again, you have not provided a reliable source for this phraseology.

I really think you should show your next attempt at rephrasing here on the talkpage, but feel fry to have another stab at it. I will continue to oppose edits that don't address my concerns above, though.

Shirachadasha - I think most of your points are valid but there are some very basic contradictions in saying that all melachos are creative or change the state of anything. We are dealing with a legalistic and not a homiletic issue here. The main premise is that the melachos are derived from the mishkan. Now that is a watertight. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be my last attempt to explain. Whether or not you can see the creativity in an activity is of minor significance. It is of more importance that others see it and live by it (and that is the point). As for borer, here is an quote from another article:

"Selecting" in the Talmudic sense usually refers exclusively to the separation of debris from grain - i.e. to any separation of intermixed materials which renders edible that which was inedible.

Now you are on your own.Ewawer (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I am not exactly "on my own". I'm trying to hammer out a version that everyone can understand, and consensus is needed. Contrary to yourself and Shirachadasha, I see absolutely no point in making generalisations that are so easily contradicted by the subject matter itself. As you might have grasped from my earlier comments, I have learnt hilchos shabbos and am well aware of their halachic and hashkafic context. We both know that motzi is a special case with specific scriptural underpinnings, but there is something very counter-intuitive to calling borer a creative act.

Could you get into the habit of providing sources for your contributions? At the moment, I think our discussion is greatly marred by a lack of direct sources. Citing other Wikipedia articles in your support is generally not OK. JFW | T@lk 05:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the way out is to characterize the "creative" view as simply one interpretation among others, rather than absolute fact, i.e. saying that the melachot "have been interpreted as" creative acts rather than saying they "are" creative acts. I think this makes all the difference. This particular interpretation is simply one point of view among others. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

Regenerative Vs. Dynamic

I was reading through as a general knowledge exercise and took note of the section titled "Technology in the service of Shabbat" the reference to a Regenerative brake. Because this is somewhat in my field of interest, I was going to read that wiki page next but soon found that the description in this page was in fact how dynamic braking works. Due to my lack of knowledge on the Shabbat, the workings of a Shabbat Elevator or anything at all to do with Judaism for that matter, I changed the link to reflect what was described in the page not what may be the actual case. I also in a short glimpsing of pages about Shabbat Elevators through a search engine can not find an answer one way or the other. So, in either case, a citation would be useful to clear up the doubt. --ThePhigment (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)