Hi Rhian,

I totally agree with you.

In Exodus 35:2, as Israel was about to embark on the work of building the tabernacle, Moses gathered all the people together and said, “For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death.”

Since the sabbath in Exodus was on Saturday this would make all people who work on Saturday deserving of the death penalty. In my opinion this is most unreasonable.

Of course his name, Thorburn, says it all. Thor was not a Bible basher but a pagan god. As such he should burn in the biblical hell.

Alan,
According to the ABS 43.9 % of Australians claimed Christianity in the 2021 Census.

Dear David F.,

«Since the sabbath in Exodus was on Saturday this would make all people who work on Saturday deserving of the death penalty.»

Not all people, according to Jewish law (Halacha), only:
1) Jews.
1a) Who know without any shade of doubt that they are Jews.
2) 13+ years of age.
3) of sound mind.
4) Who know of God's commandment not to work on the Sabbath.
4a) They must believe without doubt that this is in fact God's commandment (thus believe in God and in the Torah).
5) Who deliberately worked on the Sabbath.
5a) Their work was in one of 39 proscribed occupations: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/102032/jewish/The-39-Melachot.htm
5b) They knew that it was the Sabbath at the time.
5c) It was not at dusk (when it's unclear whether it's Sabbath).
6) Their work did not involve the saving of life or even limb, nor were they even in doubt that their work could perhaps save life or limb.
7) They were judged and found guilty by the full bench of the Sanhedrin court (which does not exist today).
7a) To be found guilty there must be 2 witnesses who saw them working. The witnesses must be male, adult, sane, not deaf and non-gamblers. Also there were no witnesses to the contrary. There must not be even the slightest contradiction between the details of their testimonies, even after the court deliberately bombards them with confusing questions.

In other words, I doubt anyone was ever executed for working on the Sabbath: death-sentence is only in theory, not in practice - the court would exhaust every excuse and avenue to avoid it, as the saying goes: "A Sanhedrin that executed more than one person in 70 years is called a “murderous” court" - http://advocacy.ou.org/judaism-and-the-death-penalty-of-two-minds-but-one-heart/

---

Dear ShadowMinister,

«This is guilt by association.»

How, when no one was guilty?!
And why should any guilt even be required?
If X does not want to employ Y, then X should not have to employ Y. No reason(s) need be given!
In this case, X was extremely stupid, yet stupidity should not be illegal.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You have pointed the lack of meaning of some biblical law. A law that is never enforced should be cleared from the books as sometimes happens with secular law. however, outside of ignoring religious law there is usually no mechanism for its repeal. Many of the 613 laws that Jews are supposed to observe deal with slavery. Although slavery is illegal the 613 laws remain. Religion often preserves concepts that are not applicable to the current world. Some Jews preserve the clothing that was fashionable in 17th century Poland. They are living fossils. In general Mormons no longer practice polygamy, but there are some sects that do.

Dear David,

«Religion often preserves concepts that are not applicable to the current world.»

Why should you attribute this to religion?

The Bible is the national book of the Jews.
While it also contains some religious wisdom, it is also made of mythology, history (true or forged), civil law, culture, customs, land-title registry, gossip, etc.

People like to preserve their culture for various reasons, not only because God told them so.

And even if the law is not applicable today, some like to keep it in the books because they believe that it could apply again in some future, possibly 1000's of years from now.

Also, Judaism has a system of layered learning from Biblical inferences, so even if a law is not applicable today, it can indirectly teach about other matters.

Here is an example to clarify:

Just like [on paper] there is no slavery today, there is also no temple in Jerusalem hence no sacrifices. Yet the Bible explicitly prescribes particular temple-sacrifices for the Sabbath, from which we can learn that sacrifices, though requiring the lighting of fire, override the Sabbath. Now elsewhere it is said that a temple-priest should even stop their sacrificing halfway in order to save a life. So by combining these two, that sacrifices precede the Sabbath and that life-saving precedes sacrifices, it can be inferred that life-saving precedes the Sabbath!

Had the laws regarding temple-sacrifices been removed, how could we possibly learn that one should, in fact must, perform work on the Sabbath in order to save life?

«Although slavery is illegal the 613 laws remain.»

Yes, slavery is now illegal, but has it in fact disappeared?

«A law that is never enforced should be cleared from the books as sometimes happens with secular law.»

Certainly, but aren't laws normally cleared by the same authority that instituted them in the first place?...