Another "hack" us Jews use very often is a timer. We have a timer hooked up to an outlet, and plug things into the timer, so you can set certain times to allow the electricity through, and other times not to.
It seems to me that "hacks" like these are just missing the point - though I'm an atheist, so maybe I'm just missing the point.
If the logic is that God didn't want a fire lit, surely that is because he didn't want the fire, not that he didn't want someone lighting it.
Isn't it all a little bit like a scaled down, less immoral, version of saying "No, I didn't kill him, I just pushed him into the ocean - blame the water"?
It seems to me a timer is fine; the point isn't to be in total darkness, the point is to not do the proscribed things. You are free to sit in front of a fire, so long as you didn't light it.
Things like the switch in this article seems really silly though. Of course having a gentile to push elevator buttons for you seems silly to me as well.
I'm not a Jew, but I've read the Old Testament, and God depicted there cares about intentions a lot more, than about effects. For example - God wanted Abraham to kill his son not because he wanted Jakub death, but he wanted blind obedience from Abraham. Which is still illogical - because first - God knew beforehand what Abraham will do, second - it's strange that God prefers people to be obedient, than ethical (one can argue that killing son because of God order is not unethical, when we assume God is always right).
Anyway - omnipotent and omniscient God is logical contradiction already, either logic don't work on God, or it's all bullshit. So religion doesn't have to be logical.
Well there are scores of books on these issues, and some great Rabbis hold exactly what you are saying. But some say that since there is no action on the Sabbath, and the act is before the Sabbath, and before the Sabbath it wasn't an issue. So then even though the result is on the Sabbath, it's not actually an issue.
If the logic is that God didn't want a fire lit, surely that is because he didn't want the fire, not that he didn't want someone lighting it.
Isn't it all a little bit like a scaled down, less immoral, version of saying "No, I didn't kill him, I just pushed him into the ocean - blame the water"?