A colleague of mine brought to my attention the Kosherswitch. This isn’t a gramma-based light switch (i.e. a light switch that is based on indirect causation). The website has all of the info about how it works, which rabbis approve of it, where to buy it, etc. It is not currently available for purchase by private consumers for use in private homes.

Update: See this post at Text & Texture. Rabbi Yisrael Rosen gives it the thumbs down.

For some time now in Arad there has been a battle between hasidim from Habad and Gur over who has control over the central synagogue. From time to time things get a bit violent, and the confrontation from this past shabbat created a rare situation. Apparently, there was an argument over which rabbi was going to have an aliyah, and it happened to be that two policemen were passing by when the tumult was happening. In the end, a female policewoman along with a Beduin policeman had to restore order to the synagogue. Ynet has some pictures that were first published on Kikar Hashabat. The above picture is a rarity, a woman on the bimah of an orthodox synagogue in Israel on shabbat, let alone surrounded by hasidim.

Yondov Kaplon has recently published Meimcha Eilecha: Sefer ha-Shabbat. (hat tip) The book is based upon the traditional liturgy for Shabbat, and it includes commentaries, both ancient and modern, stories, poetry, etc. This is similar to the popular mahazor that Kaplon edited for the Yamim Noraim.

So how are Jews responding? Some are thinking of ways to accommodate emerging technology within the structure of traditional Sabbath observance while others wrestle with the implications of the shifting media landscape for Jewish law and observance. A number stress that, regardless of legal considerations, the Sabbath’s rules and spirit have never been more important they are today, when technology saturates our lives.

To review briefly: the first stage is the most rigid, characterized by Joseph b. Simai’s refusal of non- Jewish aid and the rule that the most one may do is to inform a non-Jew somehow that if he fights the fire he will be at no disadvantage. Fire is to be fought only if a human being is endangered by it — that is, by the flames; if property is also saved, that is acceptable under the law. The first stage emphasizes the seriousness of violating the Sabbath. The second stage acknowledges an implicit expansion of the idea of “danger to life”; yet there is reluctance to approve the arguments that some Jews used to justify what they in fact did. The third stage is approval of Sabbath firefighting to save endangered lives — however those lives may be endangered by the fire: directly by flames or indirectly through mob violence, plunder and murder at a time of fire emergency. There is also a reiteration of the ancient talmudic principle that to engage in saving a life from destruction is a religious duty incumbent upon all Jews. Yet there remains the problem of performing a religious duty by breaking a religious prohibition, even if that religious duty is saving a life endangered by fire. In this situation, the violation, though in this case excused, may still require atonement and forgiveness. The final stage implicitly rejects the necessity for fasting and expiation — in virtually every case. Participation in the bucket brigade of firefighters involves only the most minor sort of infraction, and fire is in practical terms always a danger to life. If the firefighters’ efforts could be proven to be wholly a matter of saving property, then the expiatory regimen might possibly apply, but that would be extremely difficult to prove. Further, if the firemen who (as it turned out) saved only property had to fast, would they continue to fight fires that might occur on the Sabbath. Arguably some sorts of firefighting tasks could still constitute a violation if the work involved were of a different nature: perhaps actually throwing the water on the fire to extinguish it, surely a more serious level of violation; or perhaps destroying property to clear a fire break. No authority was called upon to analyze these matters. We should, however, keep in mind that those acts would become violations of the Sabbath only if it were proven that the fire in fact threatened only property, a rather tall order. If the law has not moved through a 180 degree arc, it has moved at least 175 degrees in a four stage process.

A narrower reading of the sources can be found in Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef’s discussion in Yalkut Yosef, Laws of Shabbat, vol. 3, pp. 150-155 (in my edition). Rabbi Yosef shows that the way the cooking is done in a microwave oven is different than the way that it was done in the mishkan, therefore it should only be prohibited rabbinically. The practical implications of assigning a rabbinic prohibition relate to situations such as a sick person whose life is not in danger, asking a non-Jew to use on Shabbat, etc. A more in depth discussion of the microwave oven in halakhah can be found in a article by Prof. Zeev Lev in Teḥumin, vol. 8, pp. 21-36. Prof. Lev critiques Rabbi Feinstein’s approach and holds that the use of a microwave oven on Shabbat is prohibited rabbinically.

Rabbi Feinstein seemed to be interpreting the spirit of the law, presenting a somewhat teleological approach, if it cooks, then it’s cooking. This led him to a stricter interpretation than someone who might read the sources in a narrower fashion. As an aside, this is an example when the “spirit of the law” is not necessarily more lenient, something that many liberal halakhists seem to forget.

What prohibited act might apply to it? Burning? Dyeing? Should we say that it produces the same end result as fire and therefore it should be forbidden? How far can we go in applying ancient sources to newer technologies?

I am off to a Boy Scout camping weekend, so I’ll think a bit more about it while I’m under the stars.

Update: Thanks to Manuscriptboy’s reference, I was able to find a discussion about glowsticks, or “sticklights,” in Rabbi Nachum Rabinovitch’s Melumdei Milḥamah ( pp. 159-163 in the first edition and in Teḥumin, vol. 13, p. 142-5). Rabbi Rabinovitch finds no reason to forbid their use on shabbat, although one should remember that he was speaking about their use in a military context. Now that I know what they are called in Hebrew, “sticklight,” I was able to find a few other discussions of their use. See here and here

Update II: Rabbi Dov Lior discusses glow sticks on Shabbat in his Devar Hevron, Orah Hayyim, addresses glowsticks in responsum 386 on pp. 200-201. Rabbi Lior seems to be of the opinion that glow sticks are probably prohibited because of Molid.