Someone recently submitted a question to my website asking about the Conservative Movement’s ruling that it is permissible to drive on Shabbat. I think that this is the most misunderstood and misapplied responsa ever approved by the CJLS. Rather than writing an entire paper on it, I’m going to try to summarize and explain in less than 750 words.
Note: none of this applies in a situation of potential danger to life. In that case, it may be a mitzvah (commandment) to drive in order to save a life on Shabbat.
TL;DR
In 1950, the CJLS permitted driving to synagogue on Shabbat as a temporary measure to revitalize Shabbat observance, using their inherent power as a court and relying on the principle of Hra’at Sha’ah.
Traditionally, it is prohibited to drive a vehicle or ride an animal on Shabbat.
The original responsum approved by the CJLS in 1950 had a very specific idea in mind. In the view of Rabbis Adler, Agus, and Friedman, there was a significant danger of Jews (Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative Movement 1927-1970 p1109-1134) fully ceasing to observe Shabbat. These Rabbis designed a program for “revitalizing Shabbat observance.” This was meant to be temporary, simply done to stop the loss of Shabbat observance.
As part of that responsa, these rabbis ruled that it was permitted to use a motor vehicle solely for the purpose of attending synagogue services, of which attendance of at least one per Shabbat was a central part of their program.
This was permitted as a temporary measure, and employed a halakhic principle of Hora’at Sha’ah.
(see here for an in-depth essay https://jcfa.org/article/horaat-shaah-the-emergency-principle-in-jewish-law-and-a-contemporary-application/ )
Rambam describes this principle in the Mishneh Torah (Rebels 2:4 translation and text from Sefaria)
וְיֵשׁ לְבֵית דִּין לַעֲקֹר אַף דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ לְפִי שָׁעָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא קָטָן מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ גְּזֵרוֹת אֵלּוּ חֲמוּרִין מִדִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה יֵשׁ לְכָל בֵּית דִּין לְעָקְרוֹ הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה. כֵּיצַד. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁרָאוּ לְחַזֵּק הַדָּת וְלַעֲשׂוֹת סְיָג כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַעַבְרוּ הָעָם עַל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה. מַכִּין וְעוֹנְשִׁין שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין אֲבָל אֵין קוֹבְעִין הַדָּבָר לְדוֹרוֹת וְאוֹמְרִים שֶׁהֲלָכָה כָּךְ הוּא. וְכֵן אִם רָאוּ לְפִי שָׁעָה לְבַטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה אוֹ לַעֲבֹר עַל מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה כְּדֵי לְהַחְזִיר רַבִּים לַדָּת אוֹ לְהַצִּיל רַבִּים מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִלְּהִכָּשֵׁל בִּדְבָרִים אֲחֵרִים עוֹשִׂין לְפִי מַה שֶּׁצְּרִיכָה הַשָּׁעָה. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא חוֹתֵךְ יָדוֹ אוֹ רַגְלוֹ שֶׁל זֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּחְיֶה כֻּלּוֹ כָּךְ בֵּית דִּין מוֹרִים בִּזְמַן מִן הַזְּמַנִּים לַעֲבֹר עַל קְצָת מִצְוֹת לְפִי שָׁעָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְקַיְּמוּ [כֻּלָּם] כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים חַלֵּל עָלָיו שַׁבָּת אַחַת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁמֹר שַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה:
A court may, however, suspend the application of such decrees temporarily, even if it is of lesser stature than the original court. The rationale is that these decrees should not be considered as more severe than the words of the Torah itself, and any court has the authority to abrogate the words of the Torah as a temporary measure.
What is implied? If a court sees that it is necessary to strengthen the faith and create a safeguard so that the people will not violate Torah law, they may apply beatings and punishments that are not sanctioned by Torah. They may not, however, establish the matter for posterity and say that this is the halachah.
Similarly, if they saw that temporarily it was necessary to nullify a positive commandment or violate a negative commandment in order to bring people at large back to the Jewish faith or to prevent many Jews from transgressing in other matters, they may do what is necessary at that time. To explain by analogy: Just like a doctor may amputate a person's hand or foot so that the person as a whole will live; so, too, at times, the court may rule to temporarily violate some of the commandments so that they will later keep all of them. In this vein, the Sages of the previous generations said: "Desecrate one Sabbath for a person's sake so that he will keep many Sabbaths."
https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Rebels.2.4?lang=bi&with=Halakhah%20ConnectionsList&lang2=en
In other words, the CJLS, as a Jewish Court empowered by the community, saw that there was a danger of many people simply ceasing to traditionally observe Shabbat. They therefore temporarily permitted driving on Shabbat as a way to bring people back to Shabbat observance.
This issue was revisited in 2023, with two different responsa published by the CJLS. One responsum by Rabbis Schwartz and Weiner, continues to prohibit driving on Shabbat.
Rabbis Leff and Fine permit the use of electric cars on Shabbat, as long as their use is not for non-Shabbat purposes.
https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/fine_leff_shabbat-final-7.26.pdf
It depends on which version of a dragon you are using. Does it eat? Is it carnivorous? Is it sentient? Many different genres of fantasy understand dragons in very different ways. While all of these are important questions, and impact the kashrut status of the organism. However, these are larger question. Classically Kashrut questions regarding new animals often look at the physical body and environment in which the organism lives.
So: Is a dragon a land animal, a fish, a bug, or a bird? Each of these has different signs indicating whether it is a kosher animal.
Kosher domesticated land animals have cleft hooves and chew their cud. Is a dragon a Land animal? Even if it was, I have not read of dragons which have hooves, or chew their cud.
Kosher fish have fins and scales . So is a dragon a sea animal? That categorization is more convincing, but it depends on what version you use. You could compare it to the Leviathan, which may in fact be kosher (B Chullin 67, B. Bava Batra 75.) However the use of the term "leviathan" is not in and of itself evidence. The person might be referring to a "ghost leviathan" from Subnautica, which does not have scales.
It is debatable whether or not bugs have signs. But even if they did, there are only a few species, all named in classical sources, that could be considered kosher.
So that leaves birds. And considering that birds are dinosaurs, there might be something to that category.
Birds are complicated from a Kashrut perspective. The signs that indicate that they are kosher are not given in the Written Torah, only a list of birds that are kosher and some that are not. There is a huge debate about whether it is even possible to permit birds not on the list, which has somewhat been resolved, but not entirely.
So, assuming that a dragon is a bird, and assuming that it is permissible to add birds to the list of permitted animals based on the signs, a dragon would need a few specific biological characteristics.
It cannot attack with its claws and eat. This can be defined in a few ways. Rambam defines it as a bird of prey (MT Forbidden Foods 1:16). Chabad defines it as a bird that does any of the following (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3649755/jewish/What-Are-the-Signs-of-a-Kosher-Bird.htm)
seizes its food with its claws and lifts it off the ground to its mouth
a bird that holds down its prey with its claws and breaks off small pieces to eat
a bird that hits its prey with its feet and ingests its prey while it is still alive
a bird that pounces on its prey with its claws
a bird that injects a sort of venom into its prey.
It must also have at least one of the following:
An extra claw on its feet (meaning almost an ankle spur, although you might be able to find other definitions)
A crop
The gizzard membrane can be peeled
In determining what a dragon might look like, perhaps te best prototypical dragon description can be found in Dungeons and Dragons. A brief overview of the section reveals the following:
Dragons do not have crops. Dragons vomit poison, acid, etc. Dragons have 4 legs. Some, not all dragons, may have the accepted 4th claw. Some, not all dragons, may be
non-carnivorous
Based on the sentience, lack of a crop, lack of tradition, difficulty in proper kosher slaughter, and other issues, I cannot recommend dragon meat as kosher.
*************************************************************************************************
Originally written for https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/1b8q8r5/comment/ktsdee1/
Sources:
https://dragons.fandom.com/wiki/Dragon_Physiology_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
There are probably two main questions about this, based on classical Jewish law (SA YD 268:2.)
Sentience
Is this being something as intelligent as a human? Can it study, remember, converse with humans, and consent? If it cannot, then there is no way to engage in the conversion process, which involves conversation and study.
2. Water
One of the essential processes of conversion is immersion in a mikveh. If the alien's biology cannot survive immersion in water, then they cannot convert.
However, Aleins would likely still be obligated to follow the noahide laws as, since the Torah does not have a conception of non-human mortal beings, Noahide laws are meant to be universal, and applicable to all sentient beings (see Sifra, Acharei Mot [either 140, or 13:9 depending on your version] which discusses how they are also laws that would be derived logically.)
based on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1hhpyeh/comment/m2th6s5/?context=3