Comments on: Lawsuit says automatic lights infringe religious rights

By: Puzzled

Puzzled — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:13:41 +0000

Suitepotato, it seems to me that poskeim have objected to it because 1) the person might not desire the light on, but still knows it will turn on if he takes a certain action, making it intentional and 2) assuming the device is turned on, it is a certainty that it will happen. To say “I want to walk past this device and not turn on the light” seems to me to be the same as saying “I want to take off the head of the chicken but I won’t want it to die” that is, a desire to do something without causing an effect, when the effect is intrinsic to the action, does not prevent a shabbos desecration. I don’t see why the control issue would matter, it’s just a psaik raisha.

I want to drink the soda in this can. I have no desire to create a vessel. Yet I cannot open the can (by popping the top) without creating a vessel. If you hold that the issur with electricity is completing a vessel, then aren’t these analogous cases? And isn’t it forbidden to open a can on shabbos in a manner that creates a vessel?

By: suitepotato

suitepotato — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:52:18 +0000

Can anyone point me to a ruling that says this is a violation? I cannot see how what OTHERS’ devices do has anything to do with you. The sensor has to send out light and bounce it off you and surely no one objects to light reflecting off oneself (hello matte black burqas for everyone… or better yet optical camouflage).

If I wave my hand over my neighbor’s solar panel and dim his little electric fan am I in violation when I move and return the full light to it then? If so, do I have to stand there frozen till sundown?

Within one’s direct control, one’s apartment, I can see this. Outside in an area one doesn’t control, not so much.

By: DeeElle

DeeElle — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:29:05 +0000

Yeah, what’s wrong with bike lanes?

By: Zan

Zan — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:34:46 +0000

Just curious…what’s the problem with bike lanes? That might explain the lack of haredim here in Portland

By: Sarah #2

Sarah #2 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:15:47 +0000

One of the big issues of why they are filing a lawsuit at all was because the tenants/owners offered to pay to install a mechanism that would allow you to override the automatic sensor and either keep it on or turn it off which would allow them to just leave it on all during shabbos and not have to worry about it. The fact that the complex: 1. would not allow this even though it would be at no cost to them to have such a simple repair done and have their motion activated lights the rest of the week and 2. broke a contract that specifically would prevent such a mechanism from being installed. This means that the people can not only sue for non-performance of a contract but technically, and for religious reasons it depends on the country/provinces laws and statutes, can sue over discrimination. There are also a couple other things they can sue over that this whole thing is unreasonable for the complex owner from a PR and business perspective.

I’m not sure why there is so much disapproval against this couple since they have gone out of their way to remedy this situation at their own cost. The complex here is pretty obviously negligent and disrespectful of a person’s beliefs.

By: Puzzled

Puzzled — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:05:54 +0000

Girl’s concern, though, was not limited to this case. She suggested that this could be a new way to keep Orthodox Jews out of buildings. If a landlord intended to do that, certainly they would not put such a clause into the contract. So the behavior of the defendant in this case cannot be generalized into an illicit way to keep out Orthodox Jews. To extend exactly what they did is illegal. To simply build a building with automatic lights, even if with the intention of keeping Orthodox Jews out, is not illicit.

This case, though, is different because the contract exists. In this case, I’d agree with the plaintiffs, and this is not a case of suing over Shabbos issues, but of suing over contract infringement.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:19:40 +0000

Puzzled – if you would read the full background, you would see that part of the contract that was drawn up and signed when they moved in was that there would not be any automatic lights of this nature put in.
Therefore, it isn’t just a case of the landlord being able to put in what he wants – its a case of breach of contract

By: Puzzled

Puzzled — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:20:56 +0000

Why is it a big problem? If a landlord doesn’t want orthodox Jews in his building, it’s his building. Putting in lights that some rabbis permit (although I’m not 100% sure how, isn’t it a psik raisha?) is not the most effective manner of keeping them out.

I was listening to a recorded shiur the other day, and the rabbi mentioned a friend of his whose neighbor put in an automatic light. The friend apparently bought an oaktag cutout of a person with moving joints, hung it on his porch, and aimed an oscillating fan at it. Apparently, it was close enough to the sensor that it kept the light on all of shabbos.

By: girl

girl — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:56:35 +0000

I think this is a problem indeed. More and more buildings are equiped with this light sensors. Some Rabbis are matir to live in the appartment and go in and out on Shabbes, since it is not your intention to turn on the light. But it feels weird.

I had it once in a hotel and once at a friend’s place. In the hotel I stayed cloistered the whole day, in the friends place I was told that the Rabbi had allowed to cross the barriers although the light turns on.

If there is no halachical solution for this problem, landlords could indeed “keep out” orthodox jews by installing light sensors, and it could become a big problem.