In the wake of the Atlantic article about e-readers and Shabbos (link), I’d like to examine why they cannot be used on Shabbos and how they can be adjusted for such use. All of this assumes that the reading material is appropriate, whether for weekday or for Shabbos (see Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 307:16-17). If not, then you have another reason why you should not be using an e-reader.
I. Electricity
The issue of electricity in halakhah is complex. The clear practice is to forbid adjusting electric currents on Shabbos, although there is a range of opinions as to why. This comes to the fore in the literature regarding hearing aids. Ruling entirely strictly on Shabbos causes extreme hardship to the elderly. The consensus seems to be that unless there are extenuating circumstances, we follow the strict views. When there is a need to rule leniently, we take into account the lenient views (see R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, Eidus Le-Yisrael, nos. 20, 56). Unless we are discussing a doctor or soldier using an e-reader for their work, or some similar extenuating circumstance, we cannot permit the electronic use involved in utilizing an e-reader on Shabbos.
II. Writing
The biblical prohibition against writing on Shabbos only applies to ink (or the equivalent) that lasts on a parchment (or the equivalent) that lasts. If you write with fruit juice, which doesn’t last, you only violate a rabbinic prohibition (“last” means either until the end of Shabbos or for the time people normally write things — see Sha’ar Ha-Tziyun 303:68; Bi’ur Halakhah 340 sv. be-mashkin). Similarly, writing on a vegetable is only rabbinically prohibited (Mishnah, Shabbos 104b).
R. Shmuel Wosner (Shevet Ha-Levi 6:37), writing in 1983, ruled that creating letters on a computer screen is biblically prohibited. The screen will not dissolve or rot, and is therefore the equivalent of parchment. The letters, also, will remain on screen permanently unless someone actively removes them. Indeed, in that period before screensavers, it was common to see letter burned into a computer screen, visible even when the screen was turned off. I suspect, but am not certain, that the advent of screensavers, which automatically erase the letters in a few minutes, should change this evaluation.
One might argue that on a computer screen, there is no ink on top of a parchment. The ink and the parchment are, essentially, one and the same (I’ll let the engineers correct me if I am wrong in this simplification). However, that is also true about engraving and photography, both of which are clearly prohibited. R. Moshe Feinstein wrote, in a 1979 responsum to R. Ephraim Greenblatt (Iggeros Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:40:10): “Anything that creates the act of writing, and in any manner that one performs the act of writing, is considered writing because the result of his action is that there are letters he wanted and he made them in the normal way of the act.” Similarly, Dayan Yaakov Posen writes in his Kitzur Hilkhos Shabbos (35:4): “It doesn’t matter with what the writing is made, just that what he writes should be subsequently visible.”
III. Rabbinic Writing
R. Nachum Rabinovich (Melumedei Milchamah, nos. 57, 63) argues that writing on a computer screen is not a prohibited form of writing because neither the letters nor the background will last. You will eventually turn off the electricity causing everything to disappear, and even if you do not the batteries or generator will eventually lose power and turn the computer off. Additionally, writing by typing is like writing with your left hand — it isn’t the normal way to write.
I fail to understand the argument. The screen, even if turned off, remains in place. Only the letters disappear. Therefore, writing on a computer should be rabbinically prohibited. Additionally, the Mishnah Berurah (340:22) writes that even if neither the writing nor the background will last, the writing is still rabbinically prohibited (that seems to me to be the simple understanding of the Yere’im and Semag on this subject).
The electricity argument is difficult at a home or office where the computer is connected to enough electricity to last multiple lifetimes. But even battery-operated screens do not dissolve. They merely turn off and can be turned back on. Only the letters disappear. And regarding performing a forbidden act by pushing buttons, the Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim, 36) established quite convincingly that plowing a field by starting the electricity is equivalent to doing it by hand. By pushing the button, one violates a biblical prohibition. I’m not sure why typing should be any different (see the She’arim Metzuyanim Ba-Halakhah (80:58) who quotes sources prohibiting telegraphs and stenography).
IV. Electronic Writing
Regardless, R. Rabinovich concludes (p. 187) that typing on a computer is rabbinically prohibited because it is similar to writing. He also quotes R. Moshe Feinstein (Techumin, no. 14 p. 432) and R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach as saying that it is at most rabbinically prohibited (see also Shemiras Shabbos Ke-Hilkhasah 66:55 where R. Yehoshua Neuwirth clearly implies that writing on a computer consists of text that does not last on a screen that does; and see Chol Hamoed, p. 91 n. 43; Shulchan Shlomo 340:10-11).
This means that using an e-reader or texting is doubly forbidden rabbinically on Shabbos — because of manipulation of electricity and writing.
V. Uvda De-Chol
There is a vague prohibition of uvda de-chol which forbids “weekday” activities. It cannot prohibit everything we do during the week because then we would not be allowed to eat or talk. R. Dovid Ribiat (The 39 Melochos, vol. 1, Introduction, n. 523) explains the views of three leading authorities of the late twentieth century on what is forbidden as uvda de-chol. According to R. Moshe Feinstein, the act is best performed in a forbiden way and the alternate, less intensive way one performs it on Shabbos is not readily evident. According to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, something that is normally done in a forbidden way. According to R. Yaakov Kamenetsky, something done on a large scale rather than just for Shabbos. Because using a computer is forbidden, using an e-reader in a uniquely permitted way (see below) might be an uvda de-chol according to R. Auerbach. I don’t think R. Feinstein or R. Kamenetsky would consider it an uvda de-chol.
VI. A Shabbos E-Reader
What follows are initial thoughts on how to devise an e-reader that can be used on Shabbos. I leave it to leading rabbis to fully and conclusively evaluate any proposal. An e-reader cannot be adjusted on Shabbos but it can be programmed to start a book at a certain time and turn the page at specific intervals (e.g. every 30 seconds). You can schedule a book for, say, 3pm on Shabbos afternoon.
All buttons would have to be automatically disabled so a reader cannot accidentally (or intentionally) adjust the reader. If you miss a page, it’s like going to the bathroom during a TV show (back, before DVRs) — you missed it. Additionally, the e-reader would have to glow on the outside or change colors so that anyone looking will know that it is operating in Shabbos mode.
Would anyone want this when they can buy or borrow a hard copy book? Right now, I can’t see why. But if and when a generation arises that only knows e-books, its members might want one. Until then, we’ll stick with traditional books for Shabbos.
Maybe I’m just an old curmudgeon, or maybe I’m just the adult child of two library directors who had free run of all the library’s stacks (including the closed stacks in the basements) even during off hours, but I really do like books on paper.
What does “the screen, even if turned off, remains in place” mean? The words and images don’t remain on screen once it is turned off. The 1s and 0s in your RAM remain active, so that once you turn the screen on again you’ll see what you saw before. But the words aren’t there when the screen is off. It’s an illusion.
I believe that e-ink is actually lasting in a way that computer screens are not. The image on a CRT or LCD screen is continuously being refreshed. Without power, the image on an LCD would fade. The new screens do not have the power to burn letters into them, like on the old screens.
This is not so with readers like the Kindle. In a e-ink screen, the application of a small electric field causes little tiny blobs of black and white pigment to rearrange. These form the individual light and dark patches that make up a page of text. Once this happens, the image is fixed. The e-ink screen preserves the image indefinitely, even when it is off. It is my understanding that this is actually how the Kindle works. The screen only turns on when pages are flipped.
That being the case, I can’t see R. Rabinovich’s leniency applying to an e-book.
Dave: What does “the screen, even if turned off, remains in place” mean? The words and images don’t remain on screen once it is turned off.
The screen is still there, even if the words aren’t. That’s the background, the equivalent of the manuscript.
The screen is still there, even if the words aren’t. That’s the background, the equivalent of the manuscript.
False analogy. When the screen is off, it CANNOT be written, UNLIKE a manuscript.
Not to be disparaging, but I think there’s a problem with discussing the halakhic implications of e-readers without understanding the actual technology behind them. I think there are certain problems with the original article, but to talk about the problems with technology without someone who can explain how it works is a mistake.
Especially since we seem to be pondering future e-readers and assuming they’ll work lie the (different)kinds we have now.
I’ve thought about this topic more than once before. If electronic devices could be mind-controlled, would there be room to permit operation on Shabbos (a machshava is not a maaseh)?
>What follows are initial thoughts on how to devise an e-reader that can be used on Shabbos. I leave it to leading rabbis to fully and conclusively evaluate any proposal.
Or, just stick to good ol fashion books.
When we talk about writing on computers, the more serious issue (as implied by some of the teshuvot you mention) is the storage of the data in memory, not their display on a screen.
But using your logic, here are a few points:
a) Is there a difference between e-ink and a back lit screen? Black letters on a back-lit screen (a la the iPad) only create an illusion of letters; in reality, everything is lit up BUT the letters (it’s not even chak tokhot). This might knock the level of prohibition down further.
b) To obviate the problem of writing, it might be sufficient that the screen turn off for one second at a fixed interval. THis could “destabilize” the “permanent” writing.
I believe that writing is the far bigger problem, but is also much easier to work around with an ebook (as opposed to a device with which one actually creates text).
I firmly believe that if there were no issur of electricity that shabbos would be severely impacted for the worse. However, that said, there will come a time over the next century when, if we do not reevaluate the halachic status of electricity, rabbinic jews will become karaites, not leaving their homes all shabbos. Every door will be electronically keyed, all buildings and streets will have motion detector and automatic lights and other things we cannot even think of now. And there will be no printed books.
what will we do then?
The engineering misunderstandings here are major. First a computer screen…
Old CRT style screen. A CRT style screen works by having a series of thousands of DOTS of magnetic fluorescent material which glow when shot by an electron beam. This beam scans across the screen (top to bottom), lighting each appropriate dot. The dots are clustered in groups of colors, so it not only lights an area but lights it in the right color. The scanning occurs at least 60 times per second (and the last generation of CRT’s was doing it 120 times per second) as the magnetic fluorescent material fades that fast.
So CRT screens work by shooting an electron beam at dots that glow, to create an organized picture from those tens of thousands of dots. Over time with newer and bigger screens the dots got smaller and the speed got faster, resulting in a higher resolution image. But if you take a magnifying glass to a CRT, you will see DOTS.
Meaning a CRT screen image is a chemical glow that fades in 1/60th of a second activated by electricity shooting electrons at the material, shaped in the form of tens of thousands of dots.
Now, regarding the permanence stated in the article…if a sharp contrast image was left in place on a CRT for months without changing, such as letters, then the dots suffering the electron beaming for months would take some damage and start to wear away. The result was an effect called “burning in” where the image or letters could be seen even with the screen turned off. Both “power saver” and “screen savers” solved this problem by either powering the screen down after a period of non-use (such as 10 minutes) or putting some moving image pattern on the screen – preventing any single group of dots being continually targeted with the same pattern.
LCD screens use a different technology but a similar pattern. It’s still tens of thousands of dots. But instead of an electron beam shooting straight on, each dot is a microscopic chemical crystal. Electrical signals are sent that twist the crystal to an “on” or “off” position (passing light through or not). A fluorescent light is being shined through the side of the LCD (for computer screens, calculators may have no light and rely on reflected light from the outside) and reflecting off the crystal (of a particular color) towards the front for viewing.
The electricity is holding the crystals in place to reflect the light and of the particular color. Unlike a CRT is doesn’t fade and need to be refreshed, instead it’s held in place by the electricity and fades in 3/100th of a second (or so) when the electricity is removed.
Exactly like a CRT, and LCD screen is also made of dots (pixels), though they are square instead of round on a CRT. So any image is a series of dots forming the image (including letters). (Anyone who’s seen a presentation projector can walk right up to the projection and clearly see the pixels as they’ve been enlarged for projection.)
The Kindle uses a new technology that is not an option for computer screens..EPD (electronic paper display). It is still making a series of dots into an image just like a CRT and LCD. However, instead of using crystals like an LCD, it’s using the electricity to actually move some (very small) physical dot into a visible location (or out of a visible location). After the dot is moved it stays in place without the need for more electricity…making it “permanent” until electricity is again applied to change it. (It’s not considered an option for computers because it’s only black and white (or grey scale), it draws ‘slow’ compared to LCD and has different contrast making it harder to light up.)
So with this knowledge, the first question is…
a. Is a series of dots that together form a letter equal to a letter?
b. Is shooting an electron beam at glowing dots or turning crystals with electricity any form of writing?
c. Is an image that fades in under 1/10th of a second in any way “permanent”?
d. How can anyone discuss these matters without understanding the underlying technology and use patterns?
If writing on a computer screen or Kindle is true writing, then erasing (even by scrolling) Shem ha-Shem ought to be prohibited. If you write יהוה and merely scroll the page so that it changes location, that ought to have been a prohibited act of erasing God’s name.
Also, regarding CRT burn-in: I would argue that that is m’kalkel. And if the writing remains permanently on the screen, it is a davar she’eino mitkvaen, a psik reisha she’LO niha lei.
Also, couldn’t we argue there’s some sort of grama here? Unlike typing, where you are actually choosing the words to be written, with a Kindle, you’re scrolling a page, which causes memory to be accessed, which causes the book to “write” the page. It almost seems more like amira l’akum than writing yourself. I’d argue that it’s grama.
But I’m only speculating. I am VERY unsure about what I wrote above.
By contrast, however, I am much more sure about my arguments above that
— if the screen = writing, then merely typing shem ha-shem without printing it out, is prohibited (because you’ll scroll the page);
— burn-in would be m’kalkel and a davar she’eino mitkaven –> pesiq reisha d’lo niha lei.
Take a look at the technology behind e-ink, from what I understand it doesn’t use electricity to light up the screen, but rather the electricity moves a physical element that creates the dot on the screen. This appears to move it AWAY from the generally accepted issur of electricity (according to everyone besides the Chazon Ish) but TOWARDS the issur of kotev (writing) and interestingly maybe towards an issur of boneh.
But note that many devices now are moving away from e-ink and towards regular screens (e.g., ipad).
Note also that there are many opinions about LEDs and LCDs. As I understand it, LEDs at least according to most opinions are never de’oraisa.
Lastly, we need to remember that the techification of society isn’t clear. Many non-Jews are getting into device-free days, ala the Sabbath Manifesto. Even the most Facebook-addicted teens can enjoy seeing each other face-to-face on Shabbos.
zach: When the screen is off, it CANNOT be written, UNLIKE a manuscript.
Actually, you can write on a screen even when it is turned off – the old fashioned way.
Liz: Not to be disparaging, but I think there’s a problem with discussing the halakhic implications of e-readers without understanding the actual technology behind them.
If I mentioned the technology in this post, I would only spark arguments about it, which would be a distraction. Explain how it makes a difference in this specific case. I don’t think it does, which is the point of the quotes from R. Moshe Feinstein and Dayan Posen.
Binyamin Bauman: Interesting question!
Elli: I’m not sure why storing anything in memory is a problem. Regarding Chol Hamoed, most poskim are lenient about it.
a) Why does it matter? Chok tokhos is a din in Sta”m, not Shabbos. In the end, you have caused letters to appear. That is writing.
b) That will only make it “eino miskayem”, which is already where it is. Assur midrebbanan.
Akiva: See the quotes at the end of section II in this post. I don’t think your questions change the halakhah at all.
a. The poskim universally consider dot matrix printing to be writing.
b. Why wouldn’t it be considered writing?
c. Writing that is not permanent, which is the assumption of this post, is assur miderabbanan.
d. Because the technology is largely irrelevant.
Michael Makovi: On what basis do you equate writing on Shabbos and erasing God’s name?
Even if CRT burn-in is mekalkel, the original display is not. It is both nicha leih and lo nicha leih, which is assur.
“(a machshava is not a maaseh)”
Presumably because it cannot cause a maaseh. But if we develop mind control of appliances, then it clearly can cause a maaseh. Just like currently causes your hand to move and thus to write.
“Michael Makovi: On what basis do you equate writing on Shabbos and erasing God’s name?”
I believe that is the assumption of poskim in other areas – for example, words written across the pages of a closed book, which are split when the book is opened.
“(a machshava is not a maaseh)”
Presumably because it cannot cause a maaseh. But if we develop mind control of appliances, then it clearly can cause a maaseh. Just like currently, machshavah causes your hand to move and thus to do a maaseh.
“Michael Makovi: On what basis do you equate writing on Shabbos and erasing God’s name?”
I believe that is the assumption of poskim in other areas – for example, words written across the pages of a closed book, which are split when the book is opened.
Many people are now aware of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s Meorei Aish; but, the machloket goes back earlier as evidenced in the 1911 Otzar Yisrael. See:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_2594_32.pdf (article starts on the previous page).
I question whether this edifice of prohibition, made up of chumras upon chumras, is sustainable in light of societal and technological change; and, even if it could be mitigated through “kosher devices” whether this is a worthwhile use of scarce resources. We are, after all, talking about a rabbincal issur that is less than a 100 years old; and, one that was by no means a “slam dunk” despite its ubiquity today.
R’ Gil –
Based on the halakhic sources that you’ve cited, what would you say about Mechikas HaShem on a computer? I’ve been told that it is not a problem because the screen is constantly refreshing, but that a Kindle would be different. I assume any halachos regarding writing on Shabbos would be the same for erasing Hashem’s name.
I don’t want to come across as obtuse or disrespectful, but I have been given to understand that when a rav answers a question, the expectation is that he needs to be a subject matter expert (SME) as it relates to the question at hand.
To wit, in my yeshiva, the Mara D’Asra, zt”l, not only wrote sefarim and consulted on eruvim, he constructed them as well. He also worked with his mind and hands to understand engines and motors so that he would be equipped to answer halachic questions regarding them. My point is, as his responsibilities increased, he made sure that he could be the SME when called upon. If not, he would refer you to someone else.
I think that would be the same requirement of any rav or rabbi. He pairs his rabbinic expertise with his expertise in the subject matter to answer the shayla. However, were I to ask the leading posek on bishul Shabbos how to make a cup of coffee on Shabbos but he has never heard of instant coffee, how can I be sure that I am going to get the correct answer?
>I question whether this edifice of prohibition, made up of chumras upon chumras, is sustainable in light of societal and technological change; and, even if it could be mitigated through “kosher devices” whether this is a worthwhile use of scarce resources. We are, after all, talking about a rabbincal issur that is less than a 100 years old; and, one that was by no means a “slam dunk” despite its ubiquity today.
It will be very, very difficult to roll back, even slightly. It is very hard to see how the Orthodox public (and the rabbis) will be able to deal with “Well, electricity wasn’t really melachah.” Perhaps with technology that doesn’t even have an analogy with what has been prohibited, but anything that seems similar? Who knows, maybe painting into a corner is what leads to Karaism.
Aqualung: There is no pesak here. Please offer any insights you have into the technology and its impact on halakhah. I do not believe it will change the halakhah, as explained above.
Michael: I think you’ve stumbled on an interesting way in ensuring that your comment is not deleted. 🙂
How is leaving on a theoretical shabbat e-reader different from leaving on your TV and watching college football?
> It will be very, very difficult to roll back.
Hard, yes. Impossible, no. It takes time for such changes to be socialized. And, the E-Readers discussion is a good starting off point for socializing such change.
davidwag: Sound is the issue. E-readers are silent so don’t have that problem.
GIL:
what about screen refresh?
S:
“It will be very, very difficult to roll back, even slightly. It is very hard to see how the Orthodox public (and the rabbis) will be able to deal with “Well, electricity wasn’t really melachah.””
funny how no one ever hesitates to roll in the other direction, as if that is any less of a departure from minhag/mesorah/etc.
MDJ:
“rabbinic jews will become karaites . . . what will we do then”
hopefully we won’t legislate our way into oblivion the way the karaites did
>funny how no one ever hesitates to roll in the other direction, as if that is any less of a departure from minhag/mesorah/etc.
It’s funny ’cause it’s true, right?
test
don’t know why my earlier comments didn’t go through, trying again.
R Gil – if someone shows the shem hashem on a slide projector, and then removes the slide, or shuts off the projector, have they according to your analysis engaged in mechikas hashem – after all, the wall is still there? (I don’t get your approach)
Re the larger issue – eh. These type of predictions usually don’t pan out. OJews have figured it out till now and will continue to figure it out. As a practical matter, the technology doesn’t necessarily become ubiquitous, or by the time it does, its changed, so issues of grama, psik reisha dlo nicha lei etc etc. change. And when one talks of piling chumras on chumras – re the larger spirit-of-the-law issues, OJews – poskim and the man on the street – have also had strong instincts re shabbat and I think this too will not change. Both the halacha and the attitude of OJews has proven remarkably practical and remarkably resilient, both in adapting technical categories of halacha to emerging technology and shabbat issues and in preserving the spirit of the law. Hanach lahem lyisrael etc.
In Shulchan Shlomo (340:10,11), R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is quoted as saying that letters on a computer screen that are formed by electron beams (if I understand correctly the Modern Hebrew) are rabbinically but not biblically forbidden as writing because that is not the normal way to write. For this reason, he says there is no prohibition at all of erasing a Divine name on a computer screen.
to mystical akiva (and others):
i’d have to develop the idea further (and ari / hirhurim alluded by citing dot matrix) but your argument can be used to permit thermal printing.
to hirhutrim 708am:
what about the writing 0s and 1s (equiv to Divine name) in memory?
“what about the writing 0s and 1s (equiv to Divine name) in memory?”
This should presumably be an easy thing to deal with. Do you have a problem with erasing “God” or “Lord” (the English words, that is)? How about “YHVH” (again, in English)? In writing it to memory you’re saving it in translation (0s and 1s), rather than writing the actual letters.
This is amazing. Non-Jews are moving in the direction of push-back against constant use of electronics, and Jews who innovated a day without electronics are pushing from within to throw out the good that we have.
I think that the subject is fascinating from a halachic and engineering perspective, but let’s not forget that we’re people as well. And we’re living in a society that’s just now discovering all the concerns about constant use of electronic devices.
Why should we roll back halacha just because people can’t spend a day reading a regular book? Should we permit SMSing just because teens have forgotten how to talk without texting? Should we permit Facebook just because people have forgotten that the “like” button’s thumbs-up symbol dates back to a time when people used to actually see each other’s thumbs?
On Friday nights in my neighborhood we have hundreds of teens out in the streets hanging out. Some complain about the hanging out in mixed groups, but bottom line, they’re hanging out in PERSON after spending 6 days and nights in front of screens interacting through pushbuttons. And commenters here want to have a seventh day of life in front of screens?
Dov, I hear what you are saying, but I think you are extraoplating inappropriately. First, we are in a transition period; but, the technology is changing faster than any of us imagines.
Have you heard stories yet of Jews who stay in their hotel room all of Shabbat because the doors are electric? I have.
And imagine how much richer learning might be on Shabbat if you had access to all digitized sfarim at your fingertips. Just as one example.
Technology is always a double-edged sword. And just because something is halachically permited, there are still social conventions that rule conduct (not to mention intersecting issurim, such as work).
Finally, philosophically I am opposed to abusing chumras in Halacha as a tool for social engineering out of fear and distrust of Am Yisrael. This is self-defeating as evidenced by the Brandeis study released last week: http://www.brandeis.edu/cmjs/pdfs/AJS.SSRI_Population.pdf.
Net net: despite higher growth rates among Orthodox and all the kiruv work of NCSY, Chabad et al. The attrition rate in Orthodoxy appears to be 17% (while overall population of self-identified Jews by Religion has increased in line with the general population).
Typo: should be higher birth rates (not growth).
“I think that would be the same requirement of any rav or rabbi. He pairs his rabbinic expertise with his expertise in the subject matter to answer the shayla. However, were I to ask the leading posek on bishul Shabbos how to make a cup of coffee on Shabbos but he has never heard of instant coffee, how can I be sure that I am going to get the correct answer?”
Lack of expertise never stopped a rabbi from issuing an opinion before, why worry now? But seriously Gil, you are highly selective here in the opinions you assemble – and they are by your testimony just opinions, not psak.
There are other views expressed by Orthodox rabbis and the opinions and practices of many informed and educated Orthodox lay people that you deliberately choose to ignore, here and all the time in this blog.
Your purpose is to prop up a party line, not to allow the free flow of discussion. This post exemplifies that. The notion that pushing any electrical button is prohibited on shabbos seems to me to be just about on the level of sophistication of a two year old who has learned to push electric buttons and goes around the house looking for them to push. The opinion that electrical devices are contrary to the spirit of the shabbos is an arbitrary viewpoint, one that most ordinary people will reject. Modern inventions both assist work and contribute to leisure – period. It is hard to engage in a reasonable disagreement with that assertion. A shabbos assisted by devices and inventions could be so much more fulfilling than one where you obsess with how to avoid pushing a button. Instead of true shabbos observance, haven’t we just created a monstrous world or obsessions about transgressing manneristic taboos? I think we have and that it is counterproductive to Jewish life and oh yes, also a massive distortion of the principles that form the basis of the halachah.
Why should we roll back halacha just because people can’t spend a day reading a regular book? Should we permit SMSing just because teens have forgotten how to talk without texting? Should we permit Facebook just because people have forgotten that the “like” button’s thumbs-up symbol dates back to a time when people used to actually see each other’s thumbs?
Dov, why should I ever read a “regular book” if I prefer and e-book? Why should I not talk and text? Why should I not use facebook to extend my social world, not replace it? Your viewpoint is black/white, either/or, and out of touch with the real ways that people act in the world. Technology is most often an extension of human activity, an enabler of greater satisfaction, not something evil. By your faulty logic we should avoid automobile travel, isn’t walking good enough?
Perhaps, the following sounds like a revved up response following two weeks in the spriritually awesome amnd rarified atmosphere of Yerushalayim and YU/RIETS Gruss Kollek and our grandson’s Bris Milah on Shabbos Parshas Vayechi.
I would argue that we should look at what is the hashkafa underlying the Melachos , Gzeros and related Halachos such as Muktzeh on Shabbos. I think that the underlying concept is the realization that one of the ways of imitating God is the refraining from any activity in which we demonstrate our mastery over the world, except for the well known Halacha of Pikuach Nefesh. In that sense, refraining from the use of electronic devices such as cell phones and assorted technological equipment as well as computers and delving into the Halachos and Hashkafa of Shabbos from both the view of Zachor and Shamor should be reemphasized to a generation that is addicted to the electronical device.
Steve,
You are making up things out of thin air. That is not how halachah operates. There are categories and rules. You can’t just invent new notions. Nobody is addicted, we use refrigerators and air conditioners because they are good for everyone. Should we stop using them on shabbos to refrain from demonstrating something you just dreamed up?
Regarding the excellent question of mechikah when the Name of HKB”H is written on a computer screen: I see R. Bleich in Contemporary Halakhic Problems V, p. 137 permits it because the electronic image is continuously recreated on the screen every fraction of a second. Erasure on a computer screen is an optical illusion; erasure on a computer screen actually means to refrain from rewriting. This is basically following the overhead projector analogy that was offered earlier in the comments; deactivating the projector merely refrains from rewriting, which is permissible. [Interestingly, then, that which stands as a safék about deactivating a lifesupport machine in the ICU can apparently be endorsed in good conscience when it comes to a computer screen with the Name of HKB”H.]
“The opinion that electrical devices are contrary to the spirit of the shabbos is an arbitrary viewpoint, one that most ordinary people will reject”
Mamash kefira! The whole idea of Shabbos is to render control of everything to Hashem. Even pushing a button insinuates that you control the device by virtue of turning it on or off. Even if it wasn’t an issue of electricity = fire, which it definitely is, you are totally undermining the very essence of the day. The point is that we surrender what we think we control during the week to God, who ultimately controls everything anyway. So even if you come home from shul and realize you forgot to set the timer for the lights, too bad, you eat in the dark, because it’s totally out of your control until Shabbos ends.
You have obviously brought up an interesting topic. Your conclusions, however, may not fully express the published halachic opinions.
Rabbi Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg writes that images on a television screen are not considered writing (neither ketivah nor reshima). See Ateret Shlomo Vol. 6 pp. 57-60.
Rabbi J. David Bleich writes that Rabbi Neuwirth reports that Rabbi Auerbach permitted the use of a closed circuit television screen “under all circumstances because the image projected on the monitor cannot at all be considered to be encompassed within the category of writing. That observation reflects a sophisticated understanding of how a television image is actually produced. A television receiver contains a screen whose back is coated with a fluorescent compound. When an image is projected, a narrow beam of electrons bombards the back of the screen in a scanning action. Electrons emitted by a cathode-ray tube cause the coating of the screen at the other end of the tube to light up. A bright spot of light appears wherever the electrons strike the screen. The electron beam scans across the screen in horizontal lines (525 lines per picture in the United States and 625 in Europe). An ilusion of motion is created by projecting between 25 and 30 separate pictures per second.”
“Apparently, Rabbi Auerbach did not regard images produced by
electronically generated fluorescent ilumination as even ephemeral
“writing” because such a phenomenon involves neither imposition of
one substance upon another nor rearrangement of an existing substance, nor does it involve etching letters upon a hard substanceY This was probably also the intent of Rabbi Feinstein’s categorization of the television’s image as “even inferior” to transient or ephemeral writing. Rabbi Neuwirth adds the comment that, because such electronic phenomena do not have the halakhic status of “writing,” there is no problem in spellng out or erasing the Divine Name on a computer screen.14″ (Tradition, 35:3)
Yiddle,
Do you flush the toilet on shabbos? How dare you exert control over the water flow to remove waste from your house?
Steven: Thank you very much! Interesting that R. Rabinovich quotes R. Moshe and R. Shalom Zalman from that issue of Techumin as agreeing with him that it is assur miderabbanan and the language of Shulchan Shlomo also indicates an issue derabbanan. I guess I’ll have to get a copy of the original articles myself.
1H and Anony, you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not against technology, and in fact have probably been as or more involved both in extending technology and using new technology as anyone commenting here.
But the question here is whether we have to let this technology control us, and whether adopting technology means adopting the mentality that we can’t live without it.
I have no problem with the time my kids spend SMSing and on Facebook, they’re way below the averages recently reported by PIP for the US, and moreover, they can stop on Shabbat and have rich social lives naturally. Would it be a good thing if they couldn’t interact without technology?
I have no problem (well, not much of a problem) with the time kids spend in front of on-line movies, partly because they still enjoy time interacting, playing games, talking, etc. Would it be a good thing if they couldn’t enjoy life without movies to watch?
Again, I suggest you all read the non-Jewish “Sabbath manifesto.”
Anything can be rationalized. I’m sure that I would daven better in ne’ila on Yom Kippur if I could eat first. But the Torah says not to eat. But our mission is to oseh Retzono retzoncha and retzoni la’asot Retzoncha, not to bend Retzono to fit whatever we feel.
Regarding variations in psak, it’s not right to generalize from what poskim have said about some very specific situations (closed-circuit TV, LED sensors, etc.) because if you actually look at these piskei halacha you’ll see that they also deal with issues of eino miskaven and grama. They also deal with situations where they’re unavoidable, such as visiting a hospital or walking around the Old City. To generalize from these psaks to statements about “permitting electricity on Shabbat” is mis-generalization.
Halachic discussion about the status of electricity are obviously important and valid, and a lot more sophisticated than usually given credit for (e.g., LEDs, incandescent vs fleurescent, grama, LCD screens, ….). I’m not in any way against the discussions. I’m against treating whatever we feel like (e.g., reading a book on a screen not on pages) as a forcing factor for changing halacha.
MDJ:
Don’t you think there were shaylos when flushable toilets first appeared? I guarantee you there were. For whatever reason our Sages permitted it, probably because it’s not electric, it’s permitted. If it was electrically operated you can be sure it would be forbidden on Shabbos as well.
Dov, thanks, but please look up the 1911 mareh makom I provided earlier in the thread (it is just a click to bring up the page).
Regarding the manifestos, I thought very highly of Shulevitz’s “The Sabbath World”, but I remind you that her conclusions were not as clear as you imply.
“Anyway, I like the idea of the fully observed Sabbath more than I like observing it. I like the idea of being commanded, too, in the same ambivalent way, because I believe that I am.” (p. 212)
Yiddle: In the future when you find a contradiction between what your Rebbeim tell you is Da’at Torah and the real world, please remember there are other halachic Jewish choices rather than going OTD as too many of your brethren do. Kol Tuv.
>Don’t you think there were shaylos when flushable toilets first appeared? I guarantee you there were. For whatever reason our Sages permitted it, probably because it’s not electric, it’s permitted. If it was electrically operated you can be sure it would be forbidden on Shabbos as well.
How can you guarantee that? Would a family of 8 be required to allow their waste to sit for 24 hours? Maybe, but it’s no simple matter to require that. Bedavka because electricity is not so poshut is why you certainly can’t be sure that it would be forbidden.
Here’s the thing, from a pragmatic perspective. Some things are done simply because they have always been done, whether right or wrong, and all the reason and rationale in the world won’t change it.
Even if it comes out that it is permitted to use aneBook on Shabbos, or even to turn on lights for that matter, it is pretty much a given that if you invite another frum couple over for lunch on Shabbos, and they see you flip the switch on or off, it’s virtually guaranteed that they won’t be showing up again for anything to eat, and your entire frumkeit will be called into question, with all the disadvantages that come with it.
Just like when it was “announced” that eggs don’t need to be checked any longer, and it’s even ok to eat it with a blood spot. Possibly so, but I am pretty confident that most, if not all, frum woen are still checking every egg they use, and tossing out those with a spot, and if they didn’t, the same consequences would result if anyone knew.
So basically, this is all academic.
you don’t sit in your waste. there are various methods used to control odors.
i am reminded of my father telling me his cousins were considered “rich” in hungary — they had their own private outhouse. didn’t have to share it with a neighbor, like everybody else.
(now that’s an excessive imposition. sharing.)
>Even if it comes out that it is permitted to use aneBook on Shabbos, or even to turn on lights for that matter, it is pretty much a given that if you invite another frum couple over for lunch on Shabbos, and they see you flip the switch on or off, it’s virtually guaranteed that they won’t be showing up again for anything to eat, and your entire frumkeit will be called into question, with all the disadvantages that come with it.
In this very thread I said that it would probably be impossible to roll back, so in this I agree with you.
However, on the other hand many things which used to be considered unthinkable and klohr ossur are not routine and considered obviously muttar. For example, we are all communicating in English using the Latin alphabet. Grape juice used to be she-hakol. Unthinkable to make kiddush on grape juice. And yet?
>you don’t sit in your waste.
You also don’t leave a half dozen people’s waste in a toilet for 24 hours.
>there are various methods used to control odors.
Like flushing the toilet, for example.
so many things assur, passul, tameh, treif, who can keep up with the sheer sacred beauty of it all?
Anonymous wrote:
“You are making up things out of thin air. That is not how halachah operates. There are categories and rules. You can’t just invent new notions. Nobody is addicted, we use refrigerators and air conditioners because they are good for everyone. Should we stop using them on shabbos to refrain from demonstrating something you just dreamed up?”
I think that your response illustrates a mistaken premise-namely, that we can bend Hilcos Shabbos at will without considering the halachic and hashkafic premises underlying the same.I do not view the definitions of Melacha, Gzeros and Muktzeh or such concepts as Meleches Machsheves, Melacha SheTricah LGufa, Gzeros or Muktzeh as categories imposed, but rather as the framework of Hilcos Shabbos and the basis for understanding that Shabbos is a day when as HaShem in Maaseh Breishis ceased all creative endeavors, so should we. Viewing the same in the above posted dismissive POV is IMO illustrative of a lack of knowledge of the halachic and hashkafic underpinnings of Shabbos Kodesh.
Speficially, I think that when RMF wrote a teshuvah forbidding the use of Shabbos clocks for air conditioners, air conditioning was nowhere as commonly used and relied upon as it is today. Thus, the question of whether using a clock for the same as not in the spirit of Shabbos would require a different Psak. Use of refrigerators can easily be justified by using the rationale of the Aruch in defining a Psik Reshe De Lo Nicha Leh. Flushing a toilet IMO seems analogous to removing the garbage or an infant’s diaper in any area enclosed by an eruv simply because it is a Graf Shel Reai. In a similar manner, see RSZA’s corrrespondence with the CI and comments quoted on the RCA blog re hearing aides. The real issue is the accomodation of technology within the halachic realms and hashkafic purposes of Shabbos, as opposed to deeming any innovation as inherently prohibited or permitted until and unless proven otherwise.
I am surprised that noone yet in this discussion has raised the issue of whether using technology in a non Pikuach Nefesh context constitutes a violation of “Shabason” as defined by the Ramban (Vayikra,23:24), Ritva and other Rishonim. I seem to recall that Rambam ( but I don’t exactly where) requires a Shevisah HaNikeres-how anyone can claim that active use of technology that demonstrates one’s technological mastery is in consonance with a proper appreciation of the Halachic and Hashkafic underpinnings of Shabbos strikes me as very similar to the specious arguments presented in favor of driving on Shabbos, openning JCCs , gyms and museums on Shabbos and permitting athletic activities by adults-none of which have led anyone to a true appreciation of the purpose of Shemiras Shabbos-recognition that man ceases from creative activity as well as any activity that is similar to the same or would leave to creative activity. Arguments about the permissibility of air conditioning, flushing the toilet, etc strike me as specious.
FWIW,the Atlantic article included a quote from a YCT trained rabbi that we must embrace technology and that he thinks that the prohibition against electricity on Shabbos will be revisited.
I think that the proper approach, as in all cases involving technology and science, is how technological advances can be reconciled with the existing halachic structure of Hilcos Shabbos.
In the comments to the Atlantic article, there was a link to an article by R Broyde and R Jachter in which they concluded, based on the reasoning of RSZA and other Poskim, that the use of electricity, was rabbinically forbidden. The notion that a rabbinical prohibition can be easily revisited and simply uprooted flies in the face of the well known words of the Kesef Mishnah in Hilcos Mamrim that it is far more difficult to revisit and uproot a rabbinical prohibition than a Torah prohibition. It also is contrary to the fact that all of Hilcos Shabbos, whether a Melacha Min HaTorah, Melacha MiDrabbanan, Gzerah and related halachos such as Muktzeh and Shabboson are designed to remind us that we are to avoid not just creative activity, but even activity that resembles creative activity and that would reduce the Kedusha of Shabbos Kodesh. For the same reason, I think that we should avoid the tendency to place Sefarim on E-readers and the like.
I previously commented on R J Fox’s comments re the possible reevaluation of the rabbinic nature of the prohibition against using electricity in the absence of a timer or not in a life threatening circumstance. I may have overstated my point, but to even raise the white flag and view a rabbinical prohibition of warranting the same merely because of technological advancements strikes me as approaching the issue of adjusting the Torah and Halacha to the times, as opposed to evaluating technological issues from the prism of Mesorah and TSBP.
Steve B. So tachlis, when you’re in a hotel over Shabbat, do you stay in the room all of Shabbat because the lock and/or room environmental sensors are electronic — as they increasingly are?
You tape the lock before Shabbos. The rest depends on specifics but is probably pesik reisha delo nicha leih on a derabbanan.
IIRC, we also may have taped the lock in addition to acting that the lock be disconnected.
The truth is that electricity IS permitted on Shabbos. If you live in a tall building and you turn on the tap or flush the toilet, you necessarily operate a pump. It is NOT indirect. It is automatic, a “Psik Reshei de Nichah lei”, although unseen. Yet no-one forbids this.
The principle seems to be that it is a major necessity AND it is unseen.
Geoff M, neither of the actions you mentioned require the use of electricity. Tap water and service water in a high rise building flows by gravity from a day tank on the roof. In NYC, the day tank is filled by main pressure alone in buildings less than 20 storeys high. In taller buildings, an electric pump operated by a level switch in the day tank assists main pressure in filling the tank. Even in such a case opening the tap or flushing the water does not directly involve the use of electricity. Waste water also flows by gravity to the sewer mains whose pumps operate autonimously by level and pressure switchs and transmitters.