[Avodah] kosher switch

[Micha Berger]

RnCL pointed out a number of places where my thinking as muddled, and more
where I could have been clearer. However, I think my basic thesis still
holds. So, rather than respond point-by-point, I am going to try rewrite
that thesis reflecting what I learned from the exchange.

I think the issue of probability comes up in three different ways in
the cases we're discussing.

1- In the case of brushing one's hair on Shabbos, it is the probability of
pulling out a hair. Say you brushed your hair, and managed not to pull one
out (against the odds). Then bedi'eved there was no issur, no chatas. If
they did in fact pull out a hair, they could be culpable for committing a
pesiq reishei, or not -- depending on the odds the person ignored. Which
in turn is all about whether we add up the probability of each hair brushed.

2- In the case of heter isqa, we need the bank to assume risk of losing
money as part of the definition of isqa. The actual outcome is irrelevent.
In that sense, it's unlike Shabbos hair brushing.

(That's what I was trying to say with the tangent about being able to sell
the risk as a credit derivative; I was trying to discuss a case where they
don't even hold onto the risk long enough for the outcome to affect them.)

3- Our case is also distinct. Like brushing, it depends on the outcome.
If the outcome is that an issur occured, is the person culpable. But
unlike brushing, turning on the light would be gerama rather than pesiq
reishei.

Which introduces two differences:

1- Even if the probability of doing a gerama is a mi'ut shechikhah,
rather than a rov (or some higher cut-off), is it mutar? Say you threw a
ball at a light switch because you would really want the light to go on,
but can live without it if you have to. Would you say that's mutar? So
even without adding probabilities, I think it would still be assur
because of the first opportunity for the light to go on alone.

2- This is a product that presumably most buyers bought knowing and
wanting its true behavior. Meaning, the person wants a near certainty of
getting their light to go on within n seconds. I wrote "near certainty",
because I figure whatever our cut-off is for being near enough to
definitely going to happen, the switch must reach it. Otherwise, it
doesn't do anything worth buying.

So, that's the desired goal, and thus what defines the action. The
user isn't thinking about whether the light goes on at this test by
the switch's internal circuit or that one. He is acting in order to
make the light go on within a variable window. I think therefore adding
probabilities is more justified WRT gerama than pesiq reishei.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
micha at aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter