Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 36

Sat, 02 Apr 2016

• 1. Re: Black on black tefillin retzuos (Zev Sero)
• 2. The Arba Parshiyos (Shui Haber)
• 3. Re: Fitbit on Shabbos (Akiva Miller)
• 4. Fitbit on Shabbos (Michael Poppers)
• 5. Re: Fitbit on Shabbos (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 6. Navigating Kitchen Appliance Technology (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: Black on black tefillin retzuos (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Fitbit on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Fitbit on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Fitbit on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Fitbit on Shabbos (Akiva Miller)

On 03/31/2016 10:39 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:


> 1- Is black on the underside a problem of chatzitzah?

Even if it were paint on the underside it would be tafel to the leather
and thus not a chatzitzah.  But since it isn't painted on the underside,
it's the leather itself that's dyed black, the question doesn't even arise.

  
> 2- A question I asked before, but was not satisfied with an answer...
> When the leather is soaked in dye so that it's black through-and-through
> (which is why it lasts better), is it still `or as per the requirements for
> retzu'os?
>
> As a parallel, to explain why I had the question.... Tekheiles is blue
> wool. Plain wool and dyed wool have different names, belong to different
> categories. In the past, we didn't use leather that was dyed all the
> way through. Does anyone address how we know whether it remains in the
> same category?

Techeles, Argaman, and Tolaas Shani are all subsets of Tzemer.  If
Techeles were not still Tzemer there would be no shaatnez problem
with putting it on a linen talles, and thus no need for a pasuk to
permit it.  Nor would there be a shaatnez problem with the avnet of
a kohen.


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

Hi,

I just posted my latest article on the four parshiyos - feel free to share
/ critique
http://shuihaber.com/2016/03/31/the-arba-parshiyos/
<http://l.facebook.com/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fshuihabe
r.com%2F2016%2F03%2F31%2Fthe-arba-parshiyos%2F&;e=ATPf1gklAKfGdR0fBS
fAAntysG2DAc34Dj2Q51mjXJzZOnMEUD-B7-cgj73RtOd9>
I would appreciate your feedback.

Thanks
?




[image: --]

Shui Haber
<https://about.me/shuihaber?promo=email_sig>
[image: https://]about.me/shuihaber
<https://about.me/shuihaber?promo=email_sig>

*"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is
knowing that you always are."*


?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160401/3ab8ec74/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Many of the pedometers, sleep trackers, etc... have no display. ...
> ...
> If someone were to wear one on Shabbos, every step is counted (or toss
> and turn in bed recorded, or...) but the only effect on Shabbos is in
> the voltage levels in microscopic traces within chips.
>
> After Shabbos, however, the effects of what he did on Shabbos are
> observable.
> ...
> Thoughts?

What about an ordinary old-fashioned film camera? Without a flash, there's
nothing electrical about it. In fact, when one presses the shutter, nothing
at all happens except that some chemical reactions occur in the film. Even
after Shabbos, there is no visible change to the film, until after it has
undergone some specific chemical treatment. Yet I've never seen a shomer
shabbos person use such a camera on Shabbos, nor have I ever hear it
suggested that it might only be d'rabanan.

Let's compare a modern door-opener with an older one. Nowadays, a high-tech
motion detector will sense a person approaching, and it will open the door
for him. Back in the day, we would step on a large flexible mat, and
electrical contacts would complete the circuit and open the door. Is there
really any difference between these two? The only easily-seen melacha would
be a heating of the motor that opens the door, and that is equal to both
cases.

I think the real difference between the two cases is how deeply one must
dig to see the wires and the switches: In the floor mat all you'd need, I
guess, is to cut through a centimeter or two of rubber to see the wires,
while the motion detector would need a microscope and an engineering degree
just to understand what you're looking at. But even with the mat, no one
can actually see the electricity move simply as a result of standing on it.

There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions,
but in my experience this idea is very new. Not even ten years old perhaps.
I will be the very first to concede that the ubiquity of these modern
devices is a strong incentive to find heterim for them. (And I'm not
referring to convenience or even health-related devices which we would like
to use on Shabbos, but to the extreme difficulty of avoiding security
cameras in public places, and automatic lights at night, and flushers on
hotel toilets.) But are the heterim new or old?

I guess the question I want to ask is this: Let's say that there is a posek
who rules leniently on these devices, and he bases his ruling on this
principle that tiny things can be ignored. What precedent is there? What
lenient rulings existed 25 or 50 years ago, based on that same principle?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160331/bc1b0ea4/attachment-0001.htm>

R'Micha wrote:
> If someone were to wear one on Shabbos, every step is counted (or toss
and turn in bed recorded, or...) but the only effect on Shabbos is in
the voltage levels in microscopic traces within chips.
?
>
?
After Shabbos, however, the effects of what he did on Shabbos are
observable. <
Seems similar to an automatic watch, except for there being post-Shabbos
utility to the recorded unintentional-exercise-on-Shabbos data.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160331/91881cf8/attachment-0001.htm>

R? AM:
What about an ordinary old-fashioned film camera? Without a flash, there's
nothing electrical about it. In fact, when one presses the shutter, nothing
at all happens except that some chemical reactions occur in the film. Even
after Shabbos, there is no visible change to the film, until after it has
undergone some specific chemical treatment. Yet I've never seen a shomer
shabbos person use such a camera on Shabbos, nor have I ever hear it
suggested that it might only be d'rabanan.
<SNIP>
------------------ 

 

That?s a great question, I think, about the film camera. I agree that it
makes sense that it should be only a d?rabanan, except for Polaroid. And
the d?rabanan may well be that since its entire purpose is to be in service
to that Kesivah, it?s a Kli She?melachto L?issur, and therefore muktzah.
But if that?s so, then the heteirim of muktzah would therefore apply, like
tiltul min hatzad, and shvus d?shvus, l?tzorech gufo, and so on?

But then I did some googling, and I found this, which linked back to a
source sheet from (I believe listmember) R? Mordechai Torczyner which
discusses photography at length ? here?s the first link: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/48439/operating-camera
s-on-shabbat

And here?s the link to the source sheet: http://cdn
.yutorah.org/_materials/Source_Sheet-510279.pdf

After reading through it, I still don?t see any reason to prohibit it
besides for Muktzah? (FWIW, this ynet article says that it?s an issur
d?oraysa of Rosheim: https://translate.googl
e.com/translate?hl=en <https://translate.g
oogle.com/translate?hl=en&;sl=iw&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ynet.co.il%2Farticles%2F0%2C7340%2CL-4611108%2C00.html&;anno=2
> &sl=iw&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ynet.co.il%2Farticles%2F0%2C7340%2CL-4611108%2C00.html&;anno=2
)

Rabbi Bleich at this link (http://traditionarchive.org/news/originals/Volume%2035
/No.%203/Survey%20of%20Recent.pdf) quotes R? SZA that it?s ?mistaver?
that taking a film photo is assur m?drabanan. Rabbi Bleich himself is not
so impressed with that argument. 

KT,

MYG

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160401/04895ce0/attachment-0001.htm>

See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs

Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of
refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have
long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology
advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex,
sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers.

See the above URL for more.
See http://tinyurl.com/jkvwfcs

Technology has both simplified and complicated our lives. The use of 
refrigerators on Shabbat and the limited use of ovens on yom tov have 
long been sanctioned by many rabbinic authorities. As technology 
advances, kitchen appliances have become more and more complex, 
sometimes presenting special challenges for Shabbat observers.

See the above URL for more.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160401/0a543383/attachment-0001.htm>

Further to the above: How do you understand the `Oros Eilim Me'adamim?
Were they dyed red through and through, or just painted on one side?
If the former, then there is your proof that they're still called `oros.


-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:28:35PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: I think the real difference between the two cases is how deeply one must
: dig to see the wires and the switches: In the floor mat all you'd need, I
: guess, is to cut through a centimeter or two of rubber to see the wires,
: while the motion detector would need a microscope and an engineering degree
: just to understand what you're looking at. But even with the mat, no one
: can actually see the electricity move simply as a result of standing on it.

I think those two are different in kind.

In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use the
more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense) change occurs.
It just happens that situationally, we can't see it.

Let's say there was an unlit room at the end of a long hall, so there
was no way to light it without chilul Shabbos. Would it be mutar to
write in such a room? Or is writing assur, regardless of the situation?

If a bug is born of eggs that are large enough to be visible, but happen
to be hidden within uncut meat, is the maggot kosher?

In the motion detector (or the fitbit), the change is not detectible
by an unaided human, regardless of the situation. People cannot see
the microscopic. (And yes, I realize that claim is true by definition
of the word "microscopic"). The change is outside the realm of unaided
human senses in principle, not in situation.

If one looks through water through a microscope and finds water bears
and other micrscopic bugs in it, does that water become treif? Is all tap
water or distilled water in bottles that were open too long treif because
one in theory would find such things in most water? (For a moment there
I thought about mayim she-lanu, but then realized this would be a much
more restrictive issur than that.)

: There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions,
: but in my experience this idea is very new. Not even ten years old perhaps.

Rav Dovid Lifshitz spoke about halakhah in general ignoring the microscopic
some time between Sep 1984 and Jun 1986.

The permissability of killing bugs that have no piryah verivyah on Shabbos
(or of eating them) is miSinai. Or at least, as old as some pre-Chazal
rav pasqened the deOraisa that way, since Chazal take it for granted.

The real motive for saying halakhah only applies to the sensible is to
find a new explanation for an old heter to avoid saying a din deOraisa
is in error, even though the old explanation (abiogensis of these insects)
was shown to be empirically false.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 02:06:19AM -0400, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:
: And here's the link to the source sheet:
: http://cdn.yutorah.org/materials/Source Sheet-510279.pdf

RMT's discussion is of ex rays, and really focuses on whether the
developing is koseiv. (Also, mesayeia, how often is it really needed,
etc...) If anything, I would read him as assuming that the invisiable
change to the film is mutar.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:01PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote:
: Seems similar to an automatic watch, except for there being post-Shabbos
: utility to the recorded unintentional-exercise-on-Shabbos data.

Also, the automatic watch, becoause it is never allowed to run down, is
never actually broken to need repairs. What melakhah would be involved,
even if the winding were observable? (And I think in principle it
is... one can see the spring and how tight it is.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas haOlam

I wrote:

> ... But even with the mat, no one can actually see the electricity
> move simply as a result of standing on it.

R' Micha Berger responded:

> I think those two are different in kind.
>
> In the floor mat, a hypothetically visible (really, we should use
> the more generic sensible, and not just talk about one sense)
> change occurs. It just happens that situationally, we can't see it.

Exactly which mAcroscopic change are you referring to, that is visible
hypothetically, albeit not situationally?

If you are referring to the opening of the door, that's not a melacha. For
it to be a melacha, we would have to be talking about the motion of the
electrons, and that's what am taking to be the microscopic thing here. Am I
missing something here?

Perhaps the problem is not that the door opens, but that the motor which
opens it will get hot if the current stays on for too long a time?

Here's the attitude about electricity that I grew up with: Rav Moshe
Feinstein, in Igros Moshe O"C 484, gives 4 reasons not to use a microphone
on Shabbos. The second of them is that one's voice obviously causes the
electrical current to fluctuate, and he labels this "chashash issur
d'Oraisa even without hav'ara, v'yesh l'ayen bazeh tuva l'maaseh." I will
concede that he clearly has some wiggle room there, and he doesn't specify
why he is unsure, but I never thought that the invisibility of the
electrons was an issue, since their power is so evident. Could it be that
the tide has turned, and more poskim are looking at the electrons?

I would point out that in the very next teshuva (4:85, paragraph 5) he does
try to explain his safek, and rules that because it is only a safek it can
be allowed for a choleh or tzorech gadol. Perhaps the tiny size has
something to do with it, but I am bothered by the fact that in both
teshuvos he goes out of his way to say "even though there is no hav'arah".
It sounds to me like if there WAS hav'arah -- i.e., if one did not merely
speak into the system, but powered it up on Shabbos -- then he would not be
meikil. But if the heter is based on tiny size, then powering it up should
also be okay, if there is no visible spark when the on-switch is used.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20160401/9909d928/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


**************************************

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.)