Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 92

Mon, 20 May 2013

• 1. Reform Practice in Orthodox Shuls (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Reform Practice in Orthodox Shuls (Ben Waxman)
• 3. Re: Electricity on Shabbas - R' Asher Weiss (Rich, Joel)
• 4. electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (Chana Luntz)

Recently I had the Stevens Library get me a copy of Dr. Judith Bleich's
1974 PhD thesis. It is titled "Jacob Ettlinger, His Life and Works:
The Emergence of Modern Orthodoxy in Germany". IMO this is a valuable
piece of scholarly work dealing with the life, writings and activities of
Rav Ettlinger who is often referred to as the Aruch la-Ner. According to
Rav Shimon Schwab, Rav Ettlinger was the last Gaon that Germany produced.

One section of the thesis deals with Rav Ettlinger's position on the
recitation of Kaddish. What I did not know is that the recitation of
Kaddish by more than one person at a time in Ashkenaz shuls was first
introduced in the 19th century by the Reform movement. (Sephardim
apparently have a tradition of reciting Kaddish this way due to the fact
that they say all of the davening together.)

    Rav Ettlinger strongly objected to the innovation of more than one
    person saying kaddish at a time.

    [Rav] Ettlinger's reason for objection to communal recitation is
    that the voices? are blurred and. indistinct and that the recitation
    degenerates into a babble of voices, in which each mourner recites the
    prayer at his own pace, the result being that the kaddish is inaudible
    to the congregation. This, says [Rav] Ettlinger, is unacceptable
    since the essence of the kaddish is a call for sanctification of
    the Divine Name and the prayer is thus utterly meaningless if it
    is incomprehensible. to an attentive congregation. He maintains
    that there is, however, a fundamental distinction between Ashkenazic
    and Sephardic practice. Noting that he does not know the reason for
    the Sephardic custom, he points out that 'there is still a .great
    difference, however, .between the Sephardim and the Ashkenazim. The
    former recite all their prayers in harmony and unison.' Since they
    are accustomed to harmonious recitation; even when reciting kaddish
    in unison, their voices can be distinctly heard. The same cannot be
    said of the Ashkenazim, he continues. This can be seen from 'the case
    of the kaddish de-Rabbanan [kaddish of the rabbis recited after the
    study of passages? from rabbinic literature] which is recited here
    by all mourners together. It is a mockery and derision; everyone
    tries to shout louder than his neighbor with the result that it is
    completely impossible to respond 'Amen.'" Ettlinger adds that it is
    only his great reluctance to tamper with existing traditions that
    prevents him from abrogating the practice of common recitation of
    even the kaddish de-Rabbanan.

    It is precisely such an attitude of trepidation with regard to any
    change of hallowed tradition that [Rav] Ettlinger wishes to foster.
    Addressing himself to the question of the proposed change, he
    declares, "I am altogether astonished at how you can describe as
    a wonderful and proper innovation the changing of a Jewish custom
    which has been followed in all parts of Germany and Poland for over
    300 years." To effect such a change, Ettlinger adds, is "to walk in
    the footsteps of the Reformers of our time who have changed the form
    of prayer and have introduced this custom."

Orthodox Jews pride themselves in the fact that they follow halacha
and do not take the approach of the Reform movement which has no use
for halacha. Yet, we see that virtually all Orthodox shuls (except
for KAJ, Breuer's, in Washington Heights and a few other German shuls)
have adopted the Reform practice of more than one person saying kaddish
at the same time. One would have thought at least those with Hungarian
roots would not have adopted this practice, given the long tradition of
vociferous opposition to Reform by Hungarian Orthodox Jews. Yet, one
sees even Hungarian Chassidic Jews like Satmar following the practice
of more than one person saying kaddish at a time.

Dare one suggest that Orthodox Jews now reject this Reform practice and
go back to having only one person at a time say kaddish?

YL

But even assuming that it originated with Reform Jews (no comment) that 
wasn't the reason that Rav Ettlinger objected to it.


[Rav] Ettlinger's reason for objection to communal recitation is that 
the voices? are blurred and. indistinct and that the recitation 
degenerates into a babble of voices,

So if shuls don't want a babble, all they have to do is have the people 
saying kaddish stand together when saying it.

Plus Sefardim don't all pray together out loud, at least not in the 
places I go to. The SZ davens the whole tefilla out loud, the rest of 
the people do it quietly.

Ben

On 5/19/2013 5:19 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
 >
 > Dare one suggest that Orthodox Jews now reject this Reform practice and
 > go back to having only one person at a time say kaddish?
 >
 > YL

>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.)

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

JIR-WADR as I posted there- I have heard R' Weiss mention this more than
once and he has always said that based on that Yerushalmi anything that
chazal thought shouldn't be done on Shabbat and did not fit into one of the
other 39 mlachot, would be forbidden as maakeh bpatish.  Very subjective
but that's the way halacha is sometimes (as in another favourite of r'
Weiss - masruha lchachamim [and libi omer li])
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
And I responded to this section with a PS that read:

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?


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
JIR-R' Nissan Kaplan has a whole thing on why new refrigerators are a
problem because of the continuous information transfer in the solid state
thermostat that tells the refrigerator compressor what to do.  I suspect
the response that it is all on a scale not observable by the human eye was
rejected by him.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130519/0cb66ff8/attachment-0001.htm>

>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.) >>

where is this Rambam?


>According to scientific analysis, the concept of "davar she-eino miskaven"
does not exist. Every davar she-eino miskaven is really a psik reisha.
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 psik reisha) 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 davar she-eino miskaven [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.>>

I was at loss to undertsand this. pseik reisha obviously means whatever
would
have happened in the days of Chazal. Whether one can compute it with a
supercomputer
is immaterial just as looking at microscopic bugs with a microscope is
meaningless halacically.

:
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.>>

and RSZA explicitly states that electricity is like water in that the
potential is already
there and one is only moving electrons in the wire just as one moves water
in the pipe.
RSZA in fact states that others made mistakes because they didnt understand
physics
and thought that opening a switch created something new
(actually electricity works by generating electromagnetic waves and not
moving electrons
see they dont move at the speed of light - but the argument is the same)

<<I don't think that quantum effects are going to figure in halacha. >>

Not completely clear. In fact quantum mechanics can have macroscopic
effects eg Schroedinger's cat
In fact there already exist model quantum computers



>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


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?>>

I doubt very many poskim have the ability to understand these arguments.
I have heard claims that many of todays wireless devices would be allowed
on shabbat
even according to the reasoning of CI though I have not seen any recognized
posek that.

IMHO the main problem with electricity is that the average person doesnt
know all these nuances
and therefore would be confused. This is the conclusion of RSZA and I have
heard all RMF which of course makes it a derabban

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130520/d65a47d1/attachment-0001.htm>

RET writes:

 

.where is this Rambam?

 

Short answer:  No idea.

 

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)

 

The full section regarding electricity from the CC piece is as follows:

 

[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 boneh. 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.

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?)

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 teshuvos 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 melachah of makeh bepatish.)

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?

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.]

And then later RYA quotes RAW:


>According to scientific analysis, the concept of "davar she-eino miskaven"
does not exist. Every davar she-eino miskaven is really a psik reisha.
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 psik reisha) 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 davar she-eino miskaven [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.>>

 

RET:

 

I was at loss to undertsand this. pseik reisha obviously means whatever would

have happened in the days of Chazal. Whether one can compute it with a supercomputer

is immaterial just as looking at microscopic bugs with a microscope is meaningless halacically.



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.

 

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.

 

However, because quantum mechanics is fundamentally microscopic, I initially agreed with RYA?s assessment that:

 

<<I don't think that quantum effects are going to figure in halacha. >>

 

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.

 

Now RYA answered:

 

>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



And I responded:

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?>>

 

And RET further responds:

 

>I doubt very many poskim have the ability to understand these arguments.

>I have heard claims that many of todays wireless devices would be allowed on shabbat

>even according to the reasoning of CI though I have not seen any recognized posek that.


...

 

>IMHO the main problem with electricity is that the average person doesnt know all these nuances

>and therefore would be confused. This is the conclusion of RSZA and I have heard all RMF which of course makes it a derabban

 

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.  

 

But it seems to me that the issue regarding electricity is deeper than this.  

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 w
 ay.

 

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 h
 uge 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. 

 

>Eli Turkel

 

Regards

 

Chana

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130520/89ae8b7e/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 92
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)