[Avodah] BCI and Melacha on Shabbos and Other Issurim

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 04:31:48PM -0500, eliezere at aol.com wrote:
: I have been wondering about using a brain/computer interface mechanism
: to do melacha on Shabbos.

In his blog entry at <
<http://havolim.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-discussion-about-computers-and.html>
REB put up some updates...

    UPDATE I
    Over the last two days, I spoke about this to several Talmidei Chachamim.

    * One said that it is muttar mid'oraysa. Melacha requires a physical
      act on my part. This person is a highly respected posek. He also
      holds that Rav Elyashiv's issur to walk where motion activated
      cameras will turn on is completely wrong, as does Rav Wosner.

    * One said that it is a melacha gemura. Interesting svara offered
      by the second person: He said, a melacha was done. The question is,
      to whom to be meyacheis the melacha. So, if a person tells a goy to
      do a melacha, the melacha is mis'yacheis to the goy. But if I make
      the computer do the melacha, it's mis'yacheis to me. great unknown
      says that this svara is contradicted by Reb Akiva Eiger in the
      Teshuvos #8 where he argues on the Nesivos regarding mis'asek.

    * Another talmid chacham said that it is no different than the brain
      telling the hand to light a fire. The hand's action is my action.
      The computer here becomes my hand, and the melacha is a ma'aseh
      be'yadayim.

    UPDATE II

    An excellent and helpful comment posted by the antipodean bar nash
    pc directs us to the Gemara in Sanhedrin 101a. The Gemara says that
    it is muttar to 'paralyze' an animal via a lechisha/incantation, even
    though it essentially traps the animal, and trapping is an Av Melacha.
    He said that the reason for this hetter is the absence of an act of
    Tzeidah. This is highly debatable, as will soon discuss. But Reb
    Chaim Kanievsky assumes that is the pshat in Rashi in the following
    paragraph. (And the tzushtell is notable for another reason, as well-
    he wants to be machria the issue of whether melekhes machsheiv is
    called me'lekhes machsheves from a case of me'leches mekhasheif.)
    ...
    According to his first teretz, there is a difference between the
    concept of the issurim of Shabbos and the issurim of the rest of
    the Torah. He says that Shabbos prohibits the human act, while other
    dinim prohibit causing a result....
    Magical incantations are not included in the legal definition
    of Melacha, simply because they are supernatural... According to
    this, Rashi is dealing with an entirely different issue, that of
    "ein zeh tzeidah tiv`is" , and this has nothing to do with BCI.

    According to his second teretz, Shabbos and the whole Torah are the
    same, and l'chisha would be muttar in all cases because it does not
    involve a human action. The Torah only prohibits a human action,
    not thoughts that result in action. If so, a BCI ma'aseh would be
    muttar in kol hatorah kulah.

    Let me point out that Reb Chaim Kanievsky's point that speech
    is neither action nor legally actionable is not contrary to the
    generally accepted issur on talking into a microphone or using voice
    recognition software to write or control a computer on Shabbos.
    The difference is as follows...

What about derabbanan, like amirah le'aku"m? Anyway, having recently
learned Zera'im, I was going to raise the subject of hafrashas terumah.
But REB beat me to it:

    UPDATE III

    Tosfos in Gittin 31a DH B'machshava says that a melacha that is
    done with intent alone (Tosfos is talking about being mafrish Truma
    with machshava and the issur of mesakein) is assur on Shabbos.
    The Chida in his Pnei David on Beshalach 16:23 brings a raya from
    Tosfos to the Maharsh Primo who said that since the Mahn that fell in
    the Midbar could be changed into whatever form you desired by intent
    alone- you could make it into baked, or cooked, or broiled simply by
    desiring that it be so- it was assur to make this change on Shabbos.
    The Teshuvos Har Tzvi (OC I 174) says that this really is clear
    in the passuk ... because the Mechilta says it means that the Mahn
    actually cooked/baked/broiled itself according to the owner's intent,
    and it's clear in the passuk that this change had to be done before
    Shabbos began. (It's not clear to me, though, because according
    to Reb Akiva Eiger's pshat in the Rambam 9 Shabbos 3 ... bishul of
    the Mahn could not be de'oraysa. It's a great kashe on the Rambam,
    but irrelevant to the halacha.)

    However, the Chida, in his sefer Yosef Ometz (92:2) brings that
    Tosfos in Menachos 55 says the opposite, that if the hafrasha is
    done with thought alone, it is muttar on Shabbos. The Chida's
    resolution of this stira, and a discussion on the topic as a whole,
    can be found in the Sefer Sdei Tzofim on Menachos, page 402 (page
    408 on Hebrewbooks.org , or if that doesn't work, then go here and
    then go to page 408).

    I know that some people are going to point out Reb Akiva Eiger's
    Teshuva in 159 about making a kinyan before Shabbos that will be
    chall on Shabbos. I say it's irrelevant. I'm too lazy to discuss it,
    and just wrote this so nobody should say "Ha! You forgot Reb Akiva
    Eiger's teshuva!" I didn't.

    Lastly, let me point out that the Rashi in Sanhedrin 101 is not at
    all clear as to why it is muttar, as indicated in Reb Chaim's two
    teirutzim. Concordant with Reb Chaim's first pshat, the Levush and
    the Mishna Berura (328 SK 143) learn that Rashi was mattir either
    because it's not the normal derech or because it's supernatural.
    According to both the Levush and the MB, we have no proof that
    Rashi would be mattir machshava. In fact, it is very likely that
    if Rashi held that machshava is bichlal not a ma'aseh melacha, he
    (or the people who read into him) wouldn't have to come up with
    other hetteirim like shinui or not derech hateva. Since he (they)
    did, it proves that machshava can be considered melacha. Therefore,
    according to these pshatim in Rashi, our case, which is natural and
    will soon be common, might be assur gamur:

    According to the Rambam, who holds that the lachash is a meaningless
    superstition, the Gemara is no raya at all, since the lachash
    doesn't work.

    FINAL UPDATE

    What we end up having is the following:

    * A stirah in Tosfos, Gittin 31 (Assur) and Menachos 55 (Muttar).

    * An ambiguous Rashi (that Rav Kanievsky in his second pshat reads
      to mean Muttar for sure on Shabbos, and possibly in all isurim;
      but according to his first pshat, and according to the Levush (OC
      328) that Rashi was mattir because it's not the normal derech of
      Tzeidah, and the Mishna Berura in 328 SK 143 that Rashi was mattir
      because it's not derech hateva, we have no proof that Rashi would
      be mattir machshava, and most likely a proof that Rashi would asser.

    * The shittos of the Maharash Primo and Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Assur). 

    Bottom line:

    * Assur: Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank.
    * Muttar: Rav Kanievsky in his second pshat in Rashi. 
    * Most likely Assur in Rashi and L'halacha: Levush, Mishna Berurah,
      and Reb Chaim Kanievsky in his first pshat in Rashi.

Again, if I skipped too much for you, see
<http://havolim.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-discussion-about-computers-and.html>

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha at aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507