<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=utf-8"><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:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.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><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>RET writes:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>.</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>where is this Rambam?</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Short answer: No idea.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Longer answer: - this is all based on the piece in Cross Currents by RYA who reviewed a new set of teshuvos produced by the Minchas Asher. I don’t have access to the teshuvos themselves (if anybody out there has a copy and could email me the three relevant teshuvos discussed below, that would be great)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The full section regarding electricity from the CC piece is as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>[The use of electronic devices on Shabbos is a charged issue, especially in parts of Israel where the Chazon Ish‘s influence looms as large as during his lifetime. It will be recalled that, in contradistinction to earlier poskim who saw different halachic issues in the use of electricity, the CI spoke of an issue of <i>boneh</i>. He believed that the very creation of a circuit breathed life and purpose into the wiring created for the very purpose of hosting the introduction of an electric charge. This framework worked well to limit the use of virtually all electric appliances on Shabbos for decades.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>More recently, however, a large number of devices have become common that simply do not fit into the paradigm described by the CI. They are designed to turn on and off faster than the eye can see. In fact, the eye sees nothing of the changes that occur within microchips and leaving no perceptible tracks. Do these devices fit into the conceptual framework of the Chazon Ish’s conjecture? (A recent example that raised halachic eyebrows was the installation of digital water meters in Yerushalayim that report usage in real time, transmitting the information wirelessly to collection points. Will residents of Yerushalayim have to desist from using water taps on Shabbos?)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Rav Weiss deals with GenX,Y and Z devices in three consecutive responsa. In the first, he rejects any suggestion that LED displays be considered more leniently than first-generation incandescent devices. In the second, he rejects the suggestion that devices that don’t fit the CI paradigm may be permissible. In both, he speaks quite harshly about using the CI leniently. He points out that the use of electricity was fully accepted as impermissible well before the CI, for reasons advanced by the Beis Yitzchok and the Achiezer. He dismisses multiple <i>teshuvos</i> of Sephardic poskim of many decades ago regarding electricity on Yom Tov, finding that they all misunderstood the nature of electricity. 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 <i>melachah</i> of <i>makeh bepatish</i>.)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Having arrived at this point an apparent hard-liner against electicity on Shabbos, the third teshuvah charges in from left field. In it, Rav Weiss considers a laundry list of devices that involve digital change, but are not intended to do so by the user. Must a patient in an ICU be careful not to needlessly move around in bed, because his monitoring devices are so sensitive as to respond to his every motion, and transmit data. Must a person sentenced to house arrest and wearing a digital leg bracelet be careful not to move, because a GPS device sends information to the authorities? Can one use the new generation of hearing aids? How do we deal with motion sensors in hotel rooms?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>In all of these cases, Rav Weiss opines permissively. The changes that come about cannot be part of an issur because they 1) are unobservable and imperceptible, while at the same time are 2) completely unintended by the person causing them. I wait with bated breath to learn how far-reaching this leniency will prove to be, and who, if any, will rise to challenge the line of reasoning.]<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>And then later RYA quotes RAW:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>>According to scientific analysis, the concept of "davar she-eino miskaven"<br>does not exist. Every davar she-eino miskaven is really a psik reisha.<br>According to scientific truth, nothing occurs without a >cause that makes it<br>occur. Anyone who drags a chair or bed (which [when it does produce a furrow<br>] is still termed a psik reisha) could have come to know before the fact -<br>through scientific ?>examination of the weight of the furniture and the soil<br>conditions - whether he would create the furrow or not. If in the end the<br>furrow is created, it was only because the laws of Nature ordained this<br>>from the beginning. Nonetheless, it is clear from a halachic standpoint<br>that we call the dragging of the furniture davar she-eino miskaven [and<br>permit it]. This is because according to the reality that >appears before<br>our pedestrian eyes, we cannot know if a furrow will be created or not.>></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>RET:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>I was at loss to undertsand this. pseik reisha obviously means whatever would<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>have happened in the days of Chazal. Whether one can compute it with a supercomputer<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>is immaterial just as looking at microscopic bugs with a microscope is meaningless halacically.<br><br><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Well, as I understand it RAW is not actually saying that psik reisha is what would have happened in the days of Chazal, but whether or not an individual today, with normal “pedestrian” analysis would conclude before the fact that it was inevitable or not. This he contrasts to Newtonian mechanics, which is predicated on the idea that any result must have a cause – so if in fact a furrow was in the end created, that demonstrated that we should have known that at the beginning. I think in this regard he correctly encapsulated Newtonian scientific thought and contrasted it with halacha.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The bit that jarred for me is that the upending of this was precisely the portion of Quantum Mechanics that Einstein is reputed to have objected to ie “G-d does not play dice with the universe”. That is, under Quantum Mechanics, complete predictability no longer exists – that is precisely Schroedinger’s cat. So while to my mind accurately contrasting the scientific understanding of a hundred years ago with the halacha, he was ignoring developments in science that made the statement only partially accurate, or only accurate on the large scales that we function in.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>However, because quantum mechanics is fundamentally microscopic, I initially agreed with RYA’s assessment that:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><<I don't think that quantum effects are going to figure in halacha. >></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Because it statistically and overwhelmingly tends to reduce to Newtonian mechanics for large bodies, which are the observable ones, which, as you have stated above, are the only one the halacha looks at, not at microscopic bugs, which themselves are much much larger than anything involving quantum effects.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Now RYA answered:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>>Years ago, I tried to make the case to Rav Elyashiv that circuits<br>controlled by a few electrons in a chip are just not comparable to the CI's<br>circuit. He thought about it, but then rejected it<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>And I responded:<br></span><br><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>But to the extent that we are relying on quantum effects (eg the random<br>jumping of electrons between layers in a transistor as being a necessary<br>trigger for its operation, without which any actions of mine would be<br>ineffective) are we not seriously into grama territory. If not, why not?>></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>And RET further responds:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>I doubt very many poskim have the ability to understand these arguments.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>I have heard claims that many of todays wireless devices would be allowed on shabbat<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>>even according to the reasoning of CI though I have not seen any recognized posek that.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br></span><span style='color:#1F497D'>...</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>IMHO the main problem with electricity is that the average person doesnt know all these nuances<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>and therefore would be confused. This is the conclusion of RSZA and I have heard all RMF which of course makes it a derabban<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This is why I thought it was extremely interesting to hear of (even if I have not seen the teshuvos inside) a new posek who has attempted to tackle these questions head on. Whether he does understand the physics I don’t know – I am only going on the review by RYA, because, frustratingly, I don’t currently have access to the teshuvos themselves. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>But it seems to me that the issue regarding electricity is deeper than this. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Everybody I think agrees that were we to allow the wholesale use of electricity and electric devices, we would destroy shabbas as we know it. Shabbas would become completely unrecognisable from that kept by our forefathers. I think most of us pretty confidently feel that such a scenario would be against the Torah and its intent.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>But d’rabbanan’s are very difficult. We don’t really have the power to institute new d’rabbanans today – and attempting to include electricity into old d’rabbanans runs into a lot of the same problems as including it into d’orisos. Ie none of the boxes work very well. It is one thing to say that if Chazal had known about the uses that electricity can be put to today, they would certainly have banned it, and another thing to say that actually they did effectively ban it (by stretching one of the existing categories). So you end up with hand waving that amounts to uvda d’chol and minhag Yisrael , none of which is very satisfying for something as major and life changing as this.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That, to my mind, is why the Chazon Ish looms so large in this area. Not so much because of his influence in Israel (as RYA suggests), but because he gave us a nice fair dinkum (as they say in Australia) Torah issur to deal with. That I think is how instinctively most of us feel that the matter ought to be handled. Because surely the Torah, which was created before the world and the laws of physics, would know how to handle electricity and electrical devices, and would deal with it properly, and we wouldn’t have to resort to pseudo d’rabbanans to keep the shabbas we have always kept.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>But, as you say above, “I have heard claims that many of today’s wireless devices would be allowed on Shabbat even according to the reasoning of the CI”. Once that starts happening – you are back to the same problem – that you can’t seem to find a proper torah issur that bans these things, but you need that ban to keep shabbas the way most people agree it should be. That is the need that, it seems to me, based solely on RYA’s piece, RAW is attempting to fulfil. And not only that: - he needs to be able to distinguish between the intentional and the unintentional, because we are all increasingly running into the unintentional triggering of devices (such as in the hospital as described by RYA, but not limited to that) and we are increasingly not going to be able to move if we don’t somehow allow some triggering of these divices. Ie too strict an application of the ban on electric devices is now threatening to also undermine Shabbas as we know her, so we are caught either way.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is, RAW seems to be getting us to the place I think we all feel we need to get to, and he is doing it via a fair dinkum Torah issur, which is much more satisfying and believable, BUT, (a) I am not sure that the halachic analysis is working (hence my criticisms using known halachic understandings of makeh b’patish, and also of a known scenario that nobody is going to ban – flushing a toilet); and (b) I am not sure if he does understand the physics (as you say “I doubt very many poskim have the ability to understand these arguments”). And it is critical that anybody who does this does understand the physics. If you are going to make a distinction between permissible and forbidden triggering of devices (and I get the sense this is where RAW is going or has gone, although it would be nice to read the teshuvos) based on an idea of intention and Newtonian mechanics, you also need to be able to understand the extent to which randomness and quantum mechanics actually plays a huge part in these devices microscopically, even if you are able ultimately to say that just as we ignore microscopic bugs, even more so we ignore quantum effects that occur on a chip many many times smaller. But the bugs (probably) don’t have any noticeable effect on the larger world, while the chips do, and that is an issue. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>></span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#000099'>Eli Turkel</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Chana<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>