2

The Pebble is a smart watch that connects to a smart-phone via Bluetooth and can deliver messages to your wrist. Am I allowed to wear it on Shabbat if I disconnect it from my phone? Think of it, then, as a smart phone disconnected from service, so your phone stays on the home page with no activity besides the time changing (hence I won't press any buttons).

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
Sol
  • 31
  • 1
  • 3
    Welcome to Mi Yodeya! Could you explain why you think you might not be allowed to? (For example, why did you promise you won't press buttons? Do you think that might matter?) In any event, note that this site makes no guarantee of validity, and does not offer professional (particularly rabbinic) advice. Also, please consider registering your account, which will give you access to more of the site's features. – msh210 Apr 17 '13 at 17:50
  • 3
    If you disconnect it from your phone, is it any different from any other kind of watch? – Daniel Apr 17 '13 at 18:27
  • 2
    @msh210 poor guy doesn't know what nonsense goes on here with the questions and formalities. Clearly his kavana is that it's more than a nomral "digital watch", perhaps rabbonim would be more noteh to say to not wear it. Although I also don't see so much what the probelm would be. – Yehoshua Apr 17 '13 at 18:31
  • 1
    And... that's the end of this experiment. – Sol Apr 17 '13 at 18:40
  • 1
    @Sol, what's the objection? The people here want to help, and msh210's and Daniel's questions are for clarification, not to criticize. – Monica Cellio Apr 17 '13 at 18:45
  • 2
    Indeed, as @MonicaCellio points out, I didn't mean to criticize, and your question remains open for people to answer no matter how I commented. But with your question as it is, you may well get an answer that says "no, it'd be carrying outside" or "sure, that sounds like it'd be a normal watch and everyone knows women can wear watches on the sabbath". Clarifying exactly what you're asking about will help you get the answer you're really looking for. – msh210 Apr 17 '13 at 20:16
  • 1
    @msh210 I know you didn't mean to, but I can tell you: You did. (It's not just you, don't take this too personally.) I remember being a newbie here, and man it's tough. And I've noticed that the less likely it was that anyone knew the answer, the more likely it was that "they" demanded (pointless) clarification on the question. – Ariel Apr 17 '13 at 21:09
  • 3
    The question seems to be a special case of this question http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8725/wearing-watches-on-shabbat "What is a watch one can wear on shabbat?". See the discussion there. – Avrohom Yitzchok Apr 17 '13 at 21:27
  • @Ariel, I'm disturbed by this. Maybe I can do better next time. Do you think my following comment would be a good first comment on this question? – msh210 Apr 18 '13 at 06:02
  • 5
    Welcome to Mi Yodeya! Note that this site makes no guarantee of validity, and does not offer professional (particularly rabbinic) advice. Also, please consider registering your account, which will give you access to more of the site's features. You may get answers like 'sure, why not' or 'no, it's carrying in a public domain'. Would those answer your question? If not, you may wish to [edit] more detail into the question, so as to obviate such unsatisfactory answers. – msh210 Apr 18 '13 at 06:04
  • 3
    @msh210 That's way better. You are not telling him his question was bad (incomplete), but rather telling him if he changes it he'll get more specific answers. This is good because sometimes people don't want just a specific answer - they want to see all options and opinions people care to offer. – Ariel Apr 18 '13 at 07:18
  • 1
    The thing that's lacking is he may have no idea what to edit in - and that's perfectly OK! FIRST let someone give a general non-specific answer (or comment), then after that we can nail down exactly what he means. But don't do it at the outset - wait for that general answer (or comment) first. By doing it that way (rather than understanding it perfectly first), we make things MUCH friendlier and easier for people, since now they actually understand what is non-specific about their question, and they see that people are actually answering them, not just demanding more info. – Ariel Apr 18 '13 at 07:19
  • 1
    @Ariel, the problem with getting an answer first that doesn't help the asker — and, really, we should continue this in chat — is that then editing the question obsoletes the answer, q.v. – msh210 Apr 18 '13 at 14:29
  • 4
    @msh210 That is indeed way better, instead of making me feel the noob part, of which I was intimidated even before I posted, you are merely asking for clarification. Sorry for overreacting. And to be honest, I wouldn't even know what to clarify with, the only reason I could think of as to why it would not be permissible is Muktza. Think of it as a smart phone disconnected from service, so your phone stays on the home page with no activity besides the time changing (hence the no-pressing comment). – Sol Apr 18 '13 at 14:33
  • 1
    @Sol, thanks for sticking with us, and I'm sorry we intimidated you. – Monica Cellio Apr 18 '13 at 15:03
  • Related – Daniel Apr 18 '13 at 15:08
  • 1
    @Sol If that's all you have that's what you should include. What we worry about is people asking X when they want to ask Y but only clarify after someone answers X and they complain that that really wasn't what they wanted. So saying you don't have other assumptions is fine; we just don't want to find, for example, that you only want Sefardi psak or you only ask according to those who don't hold it is muktza, after someone answered according to the other opinions. Don't forget that content here is easily editable so don't be afraid to try things and it can always be improved. – Double AA Apr 18 '13 at 15:17
  • 2
    @Ariel, I disagree with the sequence you outlined, for the X/Y reason explained by msh210 and DoubleAA. I think there's nothing wrong with asking politely for clarification/specification immediately, explaining why, as mhs210 did in his revised comment, and even closing immediately to prevent unuseful answers to the original version of the question if the original version is close-worthy. It's important to realize that providing an answer to the asker is only a fraction of the goal here, since the asker is less than 1% of the people who will read this content. – Isaac Moses Apr 18 '13 at 17:00
  • 1
    It seems to me that @AvrohomYitzchok is correct that this question looks the same as http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8725/wearing-watches-on-shabbat, except that it addresses a particular brand and weekday functionality. I think we should mark it as a duplicate and direct Sol and future readers to that question for answers, with appreciation to Sol for contributing a new way of expressing this question, thus making it more likely that future searchers will find their way to our material on the subject. – Isaac Moses Apr 18 '13 at 17:05
  • 1
    @IsaacMoses Thanks. I actually think it's more related to the question Daniel proposed - http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/28023/using-a-cell-phone-as-a-watch-on-shabbos. – Sol Apr 18 '13 at 17:20
  • 1
    @Sol, I think it's actually closely related to both of those questions. If disconnecting your phone from the watch makes it just like any old watch, then the one about wearing watches applies. Otherwise, my question might be more related (possibly even if you don't disconnect your phone, as long as you don't push any buttons). – Daniel Apr 18 '13 at 18:13
  • 2
    @Sol Actually, now that I reread the "Wearing watches on Shabbat" question, I think that one is probably more applicable to this question, and WAF's answer applies directly to this question. – Daniel Apr 18 '13 at 18:17
  • 1
    @Daniel I don't know how I missed that, WAF's answer does indeed apply here. Well, I got my answer in the end, thanks all. – Sol Apr 18 '13 at 18:31

0 Answers0