the Sabbath. However where a family resides beyond reasonable walking distance from the synagogue, the use of a motor vehicle for the purpose of synagogue attendance shall in no wise be construed as a violation of the Sabbath but, on the contrary, such attendance shall be deemed an expression of loyalty to our faith. . . . [I]n the spirit of a living and developing Halachah responsive to the changing needs of our people, we declare it to be permitted to use electric lights on the Sabbath for the purpose of enhancing the enjoyment of the Sabbath, or reducing personal discomfort in the performance of a mitzvah." In 2014, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of Conservative Judaism ruled that women are now equally responsible for observing commandments as men have been. The Committee thus ruled that women are responsible for, among other commandments, residing in a sukkah, taking up the lulav, hearing the shofar, and counting the omer in . Some modern scholars maintain that a group of priests copied an older form of the festival law now in , but added and , thus radically altering the religious outlook of the original document, acknowledging the validity of popular ritual observances deliberately shunned by the more elite priests responsible for the older version. Leviticus chapter 24 Reading the account of the blasphemer in , British anthropologist Mary Douglas observed that the man did two bad things — he cursed and he spoke against or "pierced with words" the Name of God. Douglas noted that the Israelites put him to death by stoning, and the Hebrew stem of the verb translated as "to stone" means to hurl or pelt. Douglas suggested that if wordplay is admitted, the story could be read to say that the blasphemer hurled insults at the Name of God, and then God ordained that the blasphemer should die by stones hurled at him. Employing the English metaphor of mud-slinging, Douglas compared the end of the story to: "he has slung mud, let him die by mud slung at him." Selecting possible meanings of character names that fit the story, Douglas suggested that the story told to children could go like this: Once there was a man with no name, son of Retribution, grandson of Lawsuit, from the house of Judgment, who pelted insults at the Name, and God said that he should die — because