<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.authorname
{mso-style-name:authorname;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>R’ Yitzchok <a href="http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/author/yitzchok-adlerstein/" title="Posts by Yitzchok Adlerstein"><span style='color:windowtext'>Adlerstein</span></a> on Cross Currents has a piece entitled Cutting Edge Teshuvos at: <a href="http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2013/05/03/cutting-edge-teshuvos/">http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2013/05/03/cutting-edge-teshuvos/</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In which he says:<o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>>Moreover, he promotes his own, new argument for the impermissibility of all electric devices, based on a Yerushalmi. (According to Rav Weiss, the Yerushalmi holds – followed by Rambam– that any >important accomplishment of purpose has to be melachah, even if it does not seem to fall into one of the categories in Perek Klal Gadol. It will perforce be subsumed by the >melachah of makeh >bepatish.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>In the comments section I wrote: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Without the sefer, I am clearly only going on the snippet summary you have provided – but then I asked:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>How does he distinguish electricity from the toilet flushing case (in American do you say bathroom flushing?)? That too is an important accomplishment of purpose, which as I understand it has the exact same scenario as an electricity circuit but writ large (ie the closing of the circuit causes the water to flow, just as the closing of a circuit causes the electricity to flow).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Also is he rejecting all the heterim such as folding and unfolding a buggy (pushchair? pram?) and similar forms of assembly based on the idea that something that was meant to be taken apart and put together again, and is taken apart and put together again in exactly the same way, does not constitute makeh b’patish (or boneh). These too seem to be accomplishing a significant purpose (before I didn’t have anything to put my baby in, now I do).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>These are all obvious questions, so I imagine he deals with them, but how?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Elsewhere in the piece RYA quoted RAW as saying:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>>According to scientific analysis, the concept of “<em><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>davar she-eino miskaven</span></em>” does not exist. Every <em><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>davar she-eino miskaven</span></em> is really a <em><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>psik reisha</span></em>. According to scientific truth, nothing occurs without a >cause that makes it occur. Anyone who drags a chair or bed (which [when it does produce a furrow ] is still termed a <em><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>psik reisha</span></em>) could have come to know before the fact – through scientific ?>examination of the weight of the furniture and the soil conditions – whether he would create the furrow or not. If in the end the furrow is created, it was only because the laws of Nature ordained this >from the beginning. Nonetheless, it is clear from a halachic standpoint that we call the dragging of the furniture d<em><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>avar she-eino miskaven</span></em> [and permit it]. This is because according to the reality that >appears before our pedestrian eyes, we cannot know if a furrow will be created or not.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><br></span>And I responded to this section with a PS that read:<o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>PS quantum mechanics actually says that you never really have a psik resha, it is only Newtonian mechanics that leads you to the conclusion set out here that there is always a psik resha since you could always determine if or if not a furrow would be made if you investigated the physics properly. However, since quantum mechanics is understood to reduce to Newtonian mechanics on the large scales we are talking about, eg making a furrow, (ie it becomes so statistically unlikely that the uncertainty of quantum mechanics will have an effect on the furrow that it can safely be ignored) I don’t suppose it matters in that context. This is not true, however, on the electron level where quantum mechanics plays a big part in semiconductor analysis, which I suspect is at the heart of many of the modern devices being discussed. Is this dicotomy taken into account?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>RYA responded to my comments as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>[YA - I am going to (largely) resist the temptation to do halacha on CC, especially since I can't speak for Rav Weiss. Briefly, though:<br>1) Clearly when he speaks about some significant purpose, he means to differentiate between the operation of an electric device and all the examples you cite. I think he means that the purposeful harnessing of an electric current per se is what is significant. Your other examples like allowing a flow of water through a pipe (interestingly, one of the arguments that RSZA used against the CI's boneh) and opening a baby stroller do not accomplish something new so much as utilize what is already there or assembled but waiting to be opened. 2) I don't think that quantum effects are going to figure in halacha. He is pretty clear about stating that halacha has its own ways of measuring things, based on the way the average person sees things. (Years ago, I tried to make the case to Rav Elyashiv that circuits controlled by a few electrons in a chip are just not comparable to the CI's circuit. He thought about it, but then rejected it.]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>I then responded to these comments in a further comment which at the moment is awaiting moderation, but, taking on board RYA’s comment that Cross Currents is not really the place for this discussion, thought it might be a better idea to move it to Avodah.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>So when RYA wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><br></span>>Briefly, though:<br>>1) Clearly when he speaks about some significant purpose, he means to differentiate between the operation of an electric device and all the examples you cite.<o:p></o:p></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I responded:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Understood. But how? That to me is the million dollar question: – how can you differentiate between these cases and electricity? That was really the question I was asking you (in the absence of being able to ask R’ Weiss).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>> I think he means that the purposeful harnessing of an electric current per se is what is significant. Your other examples like allowing a flow of water through a pipe (interestingly, one of the >arguments that RSZA used against the CI’s boneh) and opening a baby stroller do not accomplish something new <o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>The reason I referred specifically to the bathroom (even though I apologise for it not being the most savoury example), rather than just the flow of water through a pipe, was because the bathroom example goes a step further than mere movement of water through a pipe. The water that is moved through the pipe is purposefully harnessed to flush waste down and away, thereby achieving what I think most would agree to be an action of significant value. ie the water that is mobilised by your action is set up to be harnessed and does work. That is why I thought it even more directly analagous to the purposeful harnessing of an electric circuit than mere movement of water through a pipe, such as to provide drinking water.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>>so much as utilize what is already there or assembled but waiting to be opened.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Yes, that as I understand it is the distinction made vis a vis the unfolding of a baby buggy (or a folding chair in the more classic halachic literature). But prima facie a circuit is something that was assembled and waiting to be closed and had been opened and closed before many times. I guess the question that I am asking is: – is R’ Weiss saying: If you were to close an electric circuit and allow the current to flow round and round, as currents are wont to do and have done many times before, would that be completely mutar were you not then using that current for something (ie some device) which then falls within the significant purpose definition? Or is he really still saying (as the CI says) that the closure of the circuit in and of itself is the issur d’orisa whether or not it actually does anything useful?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>If that is what he is saying (ie that you need a significant purpose, which seemed to be what you were suggesting): – what purposes are significant? If I was to somehow use an electric current to do the work of flushing away the bathroom waste how would that then differ from the water pressure situation?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>> 2) I don’t think that quantum effects are going to figure in halacha.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I wrote in my response which is still awaiting moderation:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Agreed. I just added my PS, because as published it was a misstatement of the physics, even though I don’t think stating it the way it was stated affects the halacha at all, it just jarred.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>However on second thoughts, I wanted to further explore this. RYA said:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>>Years ago, I tried to make the case to Rav Elyashiv that circuits controlled by a few electrons in a chip are just not comparable to the CI's circuit. He thought about it, but then rejected it<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>But to the extent that we are relying on quantum effects (eg the random jumping of electrons between layers in a transistor as being a necessary trigger for its operation, without which any actions of mine would be ineffective) are we not seriously into grama territory. If not, why not? <br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Chana<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>