[Avodah] goy vs chiloni

[Chana Luntz]

RET writes:

> In the cases I know the electric buzzer only releases a switch
> but does not physically open the door which is done manually.
> I guess Arie is thinking more of a sliding door where the electricity
> actually opens the door.

I confess, so was I, I assumed that the electricity opened the door (not
necessarily sliding), and there was no practical means of it being done any
other way.

They do seem to me to be different.  The one where there is a buzzer that
deactivates the door, really does seem more like the letter inside the
envelope case (or the objects in the pit case) ie two separate objects, the
one which is enclosing the other.  The major difference, it would seem to
me, is that the envelope remains torn, where as the circuit is, as RAF says,
reset.  Still at the time the door was opened, it was not reset.

In the case of the electrically operated door, I really find it hard to see
the circuit as separate from the door itself - ie the nature of this door is
that it is a door which works by means of a live circuit.

RET has now kindly sent me the teshuva from Rav Zilberstein.  It is
extremely interesting.

He indeed brings the envelope/letter case, and brings from the Mishna Brura
case that the kriya is not consided hana'ah because he is not nehene m'gufa
shel melacha and if so, in our case he is not being nehene m'guf hama'ase of
the opening of the door, because he goes on the ground, which has not been
changed by the melacha.

He also states that while in the pit case, it would also be assur if a Jew
did it, it is because it is similar to a bayit stom u'betocho perot v'kol
deletotav naalot v'tzarich l'frotz derech chadasha d'havei bone v'nehene
mehabinya v'havig shaper ma'aseh Shabbat, masheain ken delet hasuya l'pitcha
v'na'ala, v'ain ba asiyat derech chadasha dohavi mevarech ari v'mutar.

I think I am still not comfortable in the case of a door that operates
electronically.  If you cannot open a door except by use of a circuit going
live, I can't see why it is not considered a new act of building each time,
if connecting a circuit is building, because the door and the circuit are
instrinsically one and the same.  And I think a door is made up of a door
and a door lintel, nobody provides a door without one, and the person goes
over that lintel, so I am not convinced by the going on the ground argument
either.  So I confess I still really can't see the distinction between this
case and the closed up house or the changed object.

If you are just talking about a buzzer release, which then allows the door
to be opened manually, then I think I agree it is like the letter case, you
have got rid of something external to the door and building, and the door
itself is not changed, and assuming it would be OK to read a letter opened
by a Jew b'mazid on shabbas, then I would have thought this case was the
same - based on not being nehene mguf hadavar, ie as per the Chai Adam.
Still not convinced we totally need the lion in here though.

> --
> Eli Turkel

Shabbat Shalom

Chana