[Avodah] Recent timers on Shabbat and Yom Tov posting on Hirrhurim

[Chana Luntz]

On Hirrhurim recently R' Michael Broyde has a guest post on timers on
Shabbat and Yom Tov(
http://torahmusings.com/2010/09/timers-on-shabbat-and-yom-tov.html  ).  Some
of the things he said puzzled me, a bit, particularly his references to the
shita of RYBS.  Since there are a number of RYBS aficondos on this list, I
wondered whether anybody was able to explain a bit better (the reference
that R' Broyde gave to RYBS's shita is apparently more fully explained in a
book by RHS which I don't have access to).  R' Michael Broyde wrote: 
		
		>The second position, that of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik
and others, states that the critical factor is whether the additional force
needed to finish the action is present at the time of human >activity.
Winnowing in the wind is prohibited only when the wind is blowing at the
time the wheat is thrown into the wind; the barrel case is permitted since
one is placing the barrels away from >the fire. Placing the barrels actually
in the fire would be prohibited.

		I don't really understand this.  Or at least,  I can
understand a distinction if it is not clear that the fire is going to reach
the barrels (eg there was no wind, so it might not spread that far).  But if
there was a wind that was pushing the fire along, how is this any different?
Or would RBYS and the others say that the barrel case is only talking about
a case where there was no wind and the fire's spread in the direction of the
barrels was not inevitable? (But isn't that a completely novel reading of
the gemora, as it introduces an element of uncertainty?)

		Thus of course I am having problems with the further
statement that:

		>Since when adjusting a timer the additional force needed to
finish the action, namely the rotation of the dial, is present at the time
of human activity, all adjustments that hasten an action are >prohibited. 

		As mentioned, I understand this if and only if you
understand that the fire might or might not reach barrels.  But otherwise,
why is the additional force propelling the fire (such as a wind) not
considered present at the time of human activity and why is the timer not
directly analogous.  Yes the rotation of the dial is continuing, but so is
the wind, and the fire (or dial) will inevitably come to the point where you
have placed your peg or barrel (actually most of ours work by pushing down
or up little levers so they are depressed or not - each lever corresponding
to about fifteen minutes - once the dial reaches the point at which the
levers are depressed, that enables the circuit to be complete and the
electricity to flow, once it reaches a point where the levers are elevated,
then the circuit is no longer is complete)

		>Thus, Rabbi Soloveitchik rules that under no circumstances
may one adjust the timer so that an appliance will begin to operate earlier
than expected.

		Now I can make sense of the following distinction, in that
the wind is only one force that is present when you throw the chaff in the
air.  But with regards to the fire, there are two forces ,the one propelling
the fire along so it gets to the barrels,  and the second which is the heat
of the fire which causes the barrels to explode (and release their water),
and the second is indeed not operating on the barrels at the time of the
completion of the human action.

		But it still seems to me that you have to say the same thing
for the timer (unless you take a general view that electricity is
electricity is electricity).  Because there is one circuit (which is closed
and operating) which is the one that makes the timer move round with the
time, and there is a second, open circuit.  When the timer moves around to
the peg or lever, it then causes the second circuit to close, and the second
circuit is what generates the electric current in the light that goes on.
So again, two forces.  So why under this analysis of grama is the time clock
situation not mutar?

		But then, I am having something of the same problem with the
third shita brought by R' Broyde.
		
		>A third view asserts that the critical factor is whether
the indirect process used is the normal process. If the indirect process is
the normal one, it is prohibited on Shabbat. Otherwise it is >permitted. The
barrel case is permitted only because it is not the normal manner to
extinguish fire through a time delay. Winnowing, however, is frequently done
through wind power
		
		This I understand, but then:

		>According to this approach, adjusting a timer is prohibited
since it was designed to be used in this manner; however, placing ice cubes
(or hot water) on a thermostat to increase the flow of heat >(or cold air),
would be permitted since that is an indirect and unusual manner of making
the adjustment.

		This bit I don't understand.  It is not the normal process
to light (or extinguish) electric lights by use of a time delay and timers,
but by a direct flip of a switch (unless you are referring to the case of
using a time clock to deter burglars when in fact the inhabitants of the
house are away - but is this not in fact proof that this is not the normal
function.   Ie this is done because in fact it is normal for householders to
turn on and off lights, and if in fact lights are going on and off in the
house, we assume burglars will assume it is inhabited and not burgle).   In
the case of the barrels and the fire, the emphasis seems to be on the end
result, namely extinguishing a fire, not on whether or not the barrels are
or are not designed to hold water as their normal function.  Why is the
design of the timer not similar to the design of the barrels (ie irrelevant)
making the end result of lighting or extinguishing an electric light by
means of time delay, being an indirect and unusual manner of turning on or
off lights completely mutar? 

		Shavuah Tov

		Chana
		
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101010/6f916061/attachment-0001.htm>