Be conscientious in kindling the lights in my honor and I shall light a great light on your behalf in the world to come.
TANHUMA, BE-HA'ALOTKHA 2
Electric Substitutes for Chanukkah and Sabbath Lights
The suitability of electric lights for use in place of the usual Sabbath candles and as a substitute for the traditional Chanukkah menorah has been a recurrent theme in halakhic literature since the invention of the incandescent bulb. Numerous responsa expressing conflicting viewpoints have been written on this topic. One of the earliest authorities to discuss the matter, R. Yitzchak Schmelkes, Bet Yizḥak, Yoreh De'ah, no. 120, sec. 5, ruled that electric bulbs may be utilized in fulfilling the mizvah of kindling the Sabbath lights but not in discharging the obligation with regard to Chanukkah lights. Later, R. Abraham Steinberg, Maḥazeh Avraham, I, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 41, concurred in the opinion that electric bulbs may be used as Shabbat lights. More recently, Rabbi Y. E. Henkin, Edut le-Yisra'el, p. 122, adopted a similar position. In Ha-Hashmal le-Or ha-Halakhah, a work devoted exclusively to the halakhic implications of electricity, the author, Rabbi S. A. Yudelevitz, also endorses this position. On the other hand, Rabbi Elazar Lev, Pekudat El'azar, Oraḥ Hayyim, nos. 22–23, Rabbi Ben-Zion Uziel, Mishpetei Uziel, I, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 7, and, as we shall see, Rabbi Zevi Pesach Frank all ruled that incandescent bulbs cannot be used in fulfilling the mizvah of kindling Sabbath lights. None of the aforementioned authorities sanctions the use of electric bulbs as Chanukkah lights.
A renewed discussion of this topic is to be found in two contemporary Israeli periodicals. The Tevet 5732 edition of Ha-Ma'ayan features a responsum on this theme by Rabbi Zevi Pesach Frank, the late Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem. A section of another paper on the same topic, authored by Rabbi Mordecai L. Katzenellenbogen, appears in the Cheshvan–Kislev 5732 issue of Moriah. Every practicing rabbi can attest to the frequency with which this question is posed and the interest it evokes. Although definitive answers to some aspects of the problem remain clouded by controversy, the complex nature of the considerations involved requires elucidation and merits a somewhat fuller discussion.
1. Chanukkah Menorah
The halakhic principle governing the lighting of the Chanukkah lamp is the dictum, "Kindling constitutes performance of the mizvah." For this reason, the lights, once properly kindled, need not be relit should they become extinguished. But, on the other hand, if the lamp, at the time of kindling, contains an insufficient quantity of fuel, additional fuel should not be added; rather the lamp must be extinguished and relit. On the basis of this principle, Rabbi Frank peremptorily dismisses consideration of the halakhic feasibility of an electric Chanukkah menorah. Electric current is not stored for future use but is consumed as it is generated. Thus the requisite amount of "fuel" is not immediately available at the moment the lamp is turned on. The lamp is dependent upon continuous generation of power to remain lit. Hence the act of kindling in itself is insufficient to cause the lamp to burn for the prescribed period of time. An identical line of argument is advanced by Rabbi Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach in the third chapter of his Me'orei Esh, a classic monograph on the halakhic ramifications of electricity.
Elsewhere in his published responsa, Har Ẓevi, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 143, Rabbi Frank raises yet another objection. He questions whether the turning on of an electric switch constitutes an act of kindling. He expresses doubt as to whether this is to be deemed a direct action or an "indirect action" (gerama) and enters into a further discussion of whether a direct action is indeed required or whether an "indirect action" is sufficient with regard to the fulfillment of mizvot. This point is also discussed by Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, Ẓiz Eli'ezer, I, no. 20, chap. 12, and is the subject of one section of Rabbi Katzenellenbogen's paper in Moriah.
Objections to the use of electric bulbs in place of the Chanukkah menorah have been advanced by other authorities on the basis of different considerations. Rabbi Yitzchak Schmelkes mantained that since electricity is in common use throughout the year, the use of electric lights on Chanukkah does not constitute "publicizing the miracle." Rabbi Eliyahu Klatzkin, Dvar Halakhah, no. 36, and Rabbi Henkin both assert that the Chanukkah menorah, since it is modeled upon the candelabrum used in the Temple, must contain fuel and a wick. Electric bulbs do not incorporate these features and hence, in their opinion, cannot be used as Chanukkah lights. Both Rabbi Waldenberg and Rabbi Katzenellenbogen disagree and present evidence supporting their contention that neither wick nor fuel is essential for fulfillment of this obligation.1See also Bet Yiẓḥak, Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 131. Rabbi Waldenberg nevertheless expresses doubt with regard to the utilization of electric bulbs for this purpose on the basis of a consideration which will be examined in the following section. While there is some disagreement with regard to the specific grounds for its disqualification, none of the above authorities approves the use of an electric Chanukkah menorah for fulfillment of the mizvah.
2. Sabbath Lights
The factors involved in determining the suitability of electric bulbs for use as a substitute for the customary Sabbath candles are more complex. Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Hayyim 263:11, rules that a woman who reminds herself after sunset that she has not as yet kindled the Sabbath lights should request a non-Jew to perform this service on her behalf but should pronounce the blessing herself. Subsequent commentators question Magen Avraham's rationale in directing that the mistress of the house pronounce the blessing. There is a fundamental halakhic principle that a non-Jew, who is himself exempt from such duties, cannot serve as a proxy in the performance of ritual obligations. If, then, the obligation is not fulfilled through the agency of a non-Jew, why is the woman in question instructed to pronounce the blessing? The explanation is that, in contradistinction to the mizvah of kindling the Chanukkah lamp, the precept concerning Sabbath lights is fulfilled, not in the act of kindling, but in the subsequent benefit derived from the illumination. According to Rabbi Frank, if this were the sole consideration, electric bulbs would be eminently suitable for use as Sabbath lights because the "benefit" derived from their illumination is at least equal, if not superior, to that derived from candles. Rabbi Yudelevitz, Ha-Hashmal le-Or ha-Halakhah, no. 3, chap. 6, concurs in this analysis. Rabbi Katzenellenbogen disputes the basic premise and asserts that the act of kindling constitutes the essence of the mizvah with regard to Sabbath lights just as is the case with regard to the Chanukkah menorah. This position has previously been held by Mishneh Berurah 675:1. In disagreeing with Mishneh Berurah on this point, Rabbi Waldenberg demonstrates that early authorities viewed the principle "Kindling constitutes the performance of the mizvah" as having been formulated solely with regard to the Chanukkah lamp. Rabbi Uziel endeavors to show that the applicability of this principle to the Shabbat lights has long been the subject of dispute. According to his analysis, Rambam maintains that no direct act of kindling is required while Rabbenu Tam and Tur maintain that such an act is essential with regard to this mizvah.
Rabbi Frank finds electric bulbs unacceptable on other grounds. He argues that an electric bulb is not the type of "lamp" designated by the Hebrew term ner. A ner, by definition, claims Rabbi Frank, implies the presence of a flame. The source of illumination in an electric bulb is a heated filament; there is neither fuel nor a burning flame within the glass bulb. Since the halakhic requirement stipulates lighting of a ner in honor of the Sabbath, Rabbi Frank concludes that a glowing filament may not be substituted.2A similar view attributed to R. Yosef Rosen of Dvinsk is recorded by Rabbi Frank in his Mikra’ei Kodesh, I (Jerusalem, 5735), p. 47. A similar point is raised by Rabbi Klatzkin, who observes that the term ner connotes a lamp containing both fuel and wick. Rabbi Klatzkin does not assert that the absence of fuel or wick invalidates fulfillment of the mizvah but advises that it is preferable not to use electricity wherever the Sages specify use of a ner. Parenthetically, Rabbi Klatzkin is the one authority who also discusses the use of an electric lamp as a yahrzeit light. In this case as well, he advises against the use of electricity for the identical reason.3See also R. Yekutiel Yehudah Greenwald, Kol Bo al Aveilut, p. 397, n. 30; and R. Menasheh Klein, Mishneh Halakhot, V, no. 70.
A somewhat far-fetched argument against the use of electricity for Sabbath lights was advanced by Rabbi Uziel. Doubtless this line of thought was prompted by the rather frequent power failures to which the inhabitants of the early Yishuv were accustomed. The Mishnah, Shabbat 24b, records R. Yishmael's pronouncement that itran (a type of resin) may not be used as fuel for the Sabbath lamp. The Gemara explains that since this fuel is foul-smelling, there is a distinct possibility that the householders may abandon their residence in order to escape the odor. The resultant state of affairs is, of course, the opposite of the "Sabbath delight" which the Sages sought to promote by promulgating a decree requiring the kindling of a Sabbath lamp. Rabbi Uziel argues that since there is a strong likelihood that power failure will occur as a result of mechanical malfunction, electricity cannot be used for the Sabbath lamp. The inconvenience and discomfort resulting from a power failure is antithetical to the "Sabbath delight" which the Sabbath light is designed to provide. Rabbi Waldenberg dismisses the analogy between resin and electricity as drawn by Rabbi Uziel. According to Rabbi Waldenberg, the Sages forbade the use of itran because when this substance is used as fuel, it is the lamp itself which causes discomfort. Electricity, on the contrary, carries with it no inherent inconvenience as long as it provides light. Rabbi Yudelevitz, more cogently, compares the situation to the lighting of candles in a windy place, a practice which is forbidden by Oraḥ Hayyim 673:2 because of the likelihood that the candles may be extinguished. Switching on an electric light, which may well become extinguished because of power failure, argues Rabbi Yudelevitz, is akin to lighting a lamp in a windy place. Obviously, this consideration is germane only under conditions in which uninterrupted electric power is not to be assumed as a matter of course.
Yet another objection to the use of electricity in kindling both Sabbath and Chanukkah lights is raised by Rabbi Waldenberg. The filament used in incandescent bulbs is constructed in the shape of an arc. Rabbi Waldenberg suggests that the arc-shaped filament has the halakhic status of a medurah ("blaze of fire") and thus does not fulfill the requirement for a ner. In opposing this contention, Rabbi Yudelevitz maintains that the definitive characteristic of a medurah is a large flame, whereas the filament in a light bulb produces no flame whatsoever. Furthermore, argues Rabbi Yudelevitz, even granting that the filament is a medurah, it is not therefore rendered unsuitable for use as a Sabbath light. A medurah was excluded by the Sages from use as a Chanukkah menorah solely because the latter serves as a commemoration of the candelabrum kindled in the Temple. The Sabbath lights are designed for illumination alone and therefore the enhanced illumination provided by the medurah, concludes Rabbi Yudelevitz, augurs in favor of its use for this purpose.4See also R. Meir Blumenfeld, Peraḥ Shoshanah, no. 54.
Even those authorities who permit the use of electric bulbs as Sabbath lights do not necessarily sanction the use of neon lights or fluorescent bulbs. Rabbi Yudelevitz notes that the latter are significantly different from incandescent bulbs in that their light is produced by means of the activation of a gas or fluorescent coating rather than through heating a filament or bulb. Consequently, neon and fluorescent lights provide a "cold light," remaining cold to the touch even when lit. The rabbinic edict calls for a ner, which implies a light which is produced by fire and generates heat. Accordingly, Rabbi Yudelevitz rules that neon (and fluorescent) bulbs are not acceptable for this purpose.5For additional sources discussing the use of electricity for Sabbath lights see R. Zevi Pesach Frank, Har Ẓvi, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, I, no. 143; Ha-Ma‘ayan, Tevet 5732; and Moriah, Cheshvan-Kislev 5732; R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabi‘a Omer, II, no. 17; R. Binyamin Silber, Oz Nidberu, III, nos. 1–2 and VI, no. 68; R. Menasheh Klein, Mishneh Halakhot, V, no. 41; R. Shmuel Singer, Ha-Ma‘or, Elul 5733; R. Raphael Soloveitchik cited in Ha-Pardes, Nisan 5735, p. 9; R. Abraham Schlesinger, Ha-Ma‘or, Kislev-Tevet 5735; and R. Aaron Zlotowitz, Ha-Pardes, Tammuz 5736.
3. Havdalah Flame
The suitability of an electric bulb for use in conjunction with the havdalah service marking the conclusion of the Sabbath is also a matter of dispute. Rabbi Yudelevitz recounts that the renowned R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski of Vilna was wont to pronounce this blessing upon an electric light.6A similar view is attributed by Rabbi Frank to R. Yosef Rosen of Dvinsk. See Mikra’ei Kodesh, I, 47. Moreover, R. Chaim Ozer is said to have preferred to use electricity for this purpose in order to indicate dramatically that one may not use electricity on Shabbat. By utilizing an electric light as an integral part of the havdalah ceremony he sought to emphasize that the use of electricity was forbidden throughout the Sabbath day.
Rabbi Frank, however, declares that electric lights cannot be used for this purpose. Employing the same line of reasoning cited earlier, he argues that a heated filament is not a fire. Accordingly, he rules that the blessing rendering praise to the "Creator of lights of fire" cannot be pronounced over an electric bulb.
Rabbi Auerbach advances two other reasons militating against the use of an electric light in the havdalah ceremony. According to tradition, upon the conclusion of the first Sabbath Adam struck two stones one against the other and, for the first time, man enjoyed the benefits of fire. The blessing over fire is included in the havdalah service as an expression of thanksgiving for the gift of fire bestowed upon man at the close of the first Sabbath. In view of the commemorative aspect of this blessing, many authorities rule that it may be recited only upon a flame and not, for example, upon glowing coals. The heated filament, Rabbi Auerbach argues, is comparable to a glowing coal and hence cannot be used for this purpose. Secondly, Mishneh Berurah, Bi'ur Halakhah 298, rules that, since the fire produced by Adam was an uncovered flame, the blessing cannot be recited upon a flame which is covered by a glass. Accordingly, an electric bulb cannot be used because the filament is encased within a glass, Both Rabbi Yudelevitz and Rabbi Waldenberg dispute this finding. Rabbi Waldenberg cites a variant version of this narrative as recorded in Midrash Shoḥar Tov, Psalms 92, which relates that Adam recited the blessing over a fire that had descended from heaven for his benefit. The identical version is found in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eli'ezer and is followed by a statement to the effect that the blessing may be pronounced upon the light cast by stars. Rabbi Waldenberg maintains that the authorities who do not sanction the use of glowing coals and glass-covered flames for the blessing in conjunction with the havdalah service do not base their ruling upon the midrashic narrative. Rather, he claims, their decision is based upon the contention that such illumination is inferior to that provided by an open flame, However, light emanating from an electric bulb is at least equal, if not superior, to that of burning candles. Rabbi Waldenberg permits the use of an electric light in conjunction with the havdalah ceremony when no other flames are available but, on the basis of Oraḥ Hayyim 298:2, advises that a special lamp be used rather than one ordinarily employed for illumination.
The Microphone Controversy
A recent halakhic dispute involving a ruling issued by an Israeli Chief Rabbi to a South African Jewish community and subsequently challenged by other authorities in Israel, the United States and Great Britain was amplified by the press and developed into a controversy whose echoes quickly reverberated around the globe. Unfortunately, the extended press coverage of the more dramatic aspects of this issue generated more heat than light. In reality the matter is one of significant practical concern to many rabbis and their congregations and merits detailed examination.
Over the years, rabbis and cantors serving synagogues having large seating capacities have experienced difficulties in making themselves heard by worshippers, particularly since many such edifices are plagued by inordinately poor acoustical conditions. These difficulties have, over and over again, prompted halakhic investigations of the permissibility of employing microphones and other types of public-address systems on the Sabbath and Yom Tov. The preponderance of heretofore recorded halakhic opinion has been in the negative. Some time ago, Rabbi I. Y. Unterman was queried as to whether new scientific discoveries and recent technological advances might not be employed in order to obviate the halakhic problems associated with the use of such an apparatus on the Sabbath. Rabbi Unterman in turn enlisted the aid of Dr. William Low, a professor of physics at the Hebrew University and director of the Institute for Science and Halakhah, who drew up detailed plans for a transistorized public-address system which was accepted by Rabbi Unterman as being in accordance with Halakhah. Rabbi Unterman signified his approval in an official communication dated the eighth day of Chanukkah 5730 and addressed to Rabbi B. M. Casper, Chief Rabbi of the Federation of Synagogues of South Africa. In this letter, which unfortunately does not include the halakhic reasoning upon which his decision is predicated, Rabbi Unterman stresses that his approval is limited to devices constructed in strict accordance with the detailed plans of Professor Low. In an obiter dictum Rabbi Unterman declines to sanction the use of amplifying devices in Israeli synagogues because of his concern lest scrupulous attention not be paid to the construction of such microphones in meticulous conformity to all the details of the blueprints prepared by Professor Low. A report on the discussions between himself and Rabbi Unterman as well as a non-technical description of the Low system was published by Rabbi Casper in the July 1970 issue of the Federation Chronicle. A description of the proposed system appears in a pamphlet published by the Institute for Science and Halakhah entitled Shimmush be-Mikrofon be-Shabbat, dated Tammuz 5729. The writer is indebted to Rabbi Casper for making available to him additional information regarding the nature of the system. The following are the salient features of the system devised by Professor Low:
1. 1. The microphone and public address system must be completely transistorized. There must be neither electron tubes nor electric pilot lights in the system. The device should contain no metal or other material which may become heated in the course of amplification.
2. 2. The microphone must be of the condenser or capacitor type. In utilization of the condenser type microphone the voice does not create energy, as is the case with other microphones, but merely manipulates the energy already stored in it.
3. 3. The system must be operated by batteries and not be connected to any other electricity supply.
4. 4. The batteries should be charged before the onset of Shabbat or Yom Tov and should hold at least twice the amount of current required for use during the Shabbat or Yom Tov period.
5. 5. The transistorized system should remain open during the entire Shabbat or Yom Tov period or be switched on and off automatically by means of a time clock.
6. 6. There must be no possibility of increasing or decreasing the volume of amplification on Shabbat or Yom Tov. Accordingly, the storage batteries and other equipment must be enclosed in a locked case or closet in order to preclude the possibility of any person adjusting or otherwise tampering with the system on Shabbat or Yom Tov.
These provisions are designed to eliminate various infractions of the laws concerning forbidden acts on Shabbat and Yom Tov and, accordingly, Rabbi Unterman stresses that any deviation from the details of the Low system will result in the violation of halakhic restrictions. Rabbi Casper reports that some authorities have expressed objections on the grounds that obvious and readily discernible amplification may lead individuals to draw erroneous inferences regarding the use of electricity on Shabbat. Because of ignorance of the technical nature of the amplification system in use, some individuals may assume that ordinary use of electrical devices and appliances is permissible. Accordingly, the system, as designed by Professor Low, provides for several loudspeakers to be installed throughout the synagogue in order to reproduce a voice which is not unduly loud and is as natural in tone as possible. Furthermore, it is directed that steps be taken to inform congregants that the system does not function through utilization of the usual sources of electrical current and that the special arrangements are under rabbinic supervision.
Despite the innovations introduced by Professor Low in devising his system, many rabbinic authorities took sharp issue with the permissive ruling issued by Rabbi Unterman in approving this device. A negative ruling dated 27 Elul, 5730 was issued and signed by Rabbi Moses Feinstein in his capacity as president of the Agudat ha-Rabbanim. This ruling specifically bans the use of transistorized systems as constituting desecration of Shabbat and Yom Tov.7Cf. R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, IX, no. 21. It is interesting to note that while Rabbi Unterman relies upon technical information supplied by the Institute for Science and Halakhah, the Institute itself issued a contrary opinion with regard to the use of transistorized systems. The conclusions of the Institute were published in the previously cited pamphlet, which may presumably be regarded as an expression of the collective view of the Fellows of the Institute since the pamphlet does not bear the name of an individual author or authors.
Moreover, in recent communications addressed to individuals and synagogues seeking his guidance, Rabbi Unterman himself has narrowly circumscribed the scope of his original ruling. In a letter dated 21 Iyar, 5731, a copy of which is in the possession of this writer, Rabbi Unterman declares that he had granted permission for the use of the system devised by Professor Low "only in communities where, to our regret, desecration of the Sabbath through [use of] the electrical microphone became so deeply rooted that it was as if they had completely forgotten that turning on electricity is a serious form of 'labor' on the Sabbath. But in a place where this did not previously exist we did not permit the installation of the improved [apparatus] because there are questions with regard to it which cannot be resolved."
The apparatus designed by Professor Low successfully eliminates questions of forbidden "labor" arising from sparking, heating of metal elements, creation of a finished utensil and "giving birth" to newly created electric current (molid). The controversy centers around various other considerations:8Various aspects of the halakhic questions pertaining to the use of the microphone are discussed by R. Ovadiah Hadaya, Yaskil Avdi, no. 29; R. Zevi Pesach Frank, Har Ẓvi, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, I, no. 183; R. Meshullam Roth, Kol Mevaser, II, no. 25; R. Moses Feinstein, Iggrot Mosheh, Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 5, and Oraḥ Ḥayyim, III, no. 55; Peraḥ Shoshanah, no. 58; R. Yitzchak Ya‘akov Weisz, Minḥat Yiẓḥak, I, no. 107, and III, no. 38; R. Shmuel Hubner, Ha–Darom, Elul 5721; R. Shmuel Rubinstein, Torah She-be-‘al Peh, IX (5727); and R. Chaim Regensberg, Ha-Darom, Nisan 5734. The permissive view of R. Simchah Levy, former chairman of the Halakhah Commission of the Rabbinical Council of America, is recorded in Ha-Pardes, Iyar 5712 and in his Simḥat ha-Levi, no. 26.
1. The playing of musical instruments (mashmi'a kol—"causing a sound to be heard") on Shabbat or Yom Tov is rabbinically forbidden, lest one be tempted to repair the instrument and thereby transgress a biblical prohibition. Rema (Oraḥ Hayyim 338:1) declares that causing the emission of any sound by a utensil designed for this purpose falls within this category and is forbidden. Consistent with his view that this edict is not limited to musical instruments, Rema declares that the use of door-knockers is forbidden on Shabbat. Similarly, it is argued, a microphone constitutes a device specifically designed for the production of sound. Microphones do not simply amplify an already existing human voice; rather, through the use of a transducer, the human voice utilizes electric current which in turn creates audio-tones resembling the human voice but higher in volume. The perceived sound is not that of the human voice but a totally different sound produced by electric current. Rabbi Yitzchak Schmelkes (Bet Yizḥak, Yoreh De'ah, II, Mafteḥot, no. 31) declares that the act of speaking on a telephone is forbidden on Shabbat because the electric current creates a new sound. Some writers (Rabbi Joseph Tumim, Ha-Pardes Sivan 5705, and Rabbi Menachem Poliakov, Ha-Darom, Nisan 5718) dismiss these arguments on the erroneous assumption that a microphone merely amplifies the human voice, whereas, in reality, the microphone, through the intermediary of electric current, converts the voice into a totally new sound. Even if the microphone were designed merely to amplify the human voice it is not entirely clear that the use of such a device would be permissible. Rabbi Samuel Hubner (Ha-Darom, Nisan 5719) accepts the premise that in electronic amplification it is the human voice which is heard but nevertheless argues that in the eyes of Halakhah the amplification of an existing sound constitutes the creation of a new "voice." The prohibition against "causing a sound to be heard," which applies to transistor microphones no less than to conventional amplification systems, is sufficient reason in and of itself for disallowing the use of microphones on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Numerous halakhic authorities cite this explanation in ruling against the use of microphones.9See R. Yosef Rosen, Ẓofnat Pa‘aneaḥ, II, no. 19; R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, Edut le-Yisra‘el, p. 122; R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, IV, no. 26; R. Ben-Zion Uziel, Mishpetei Uziel, I, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 13; Minḥat Yiẓḥak, III, no. 38; R. Yitzchak Glick, Yad Yiẓḥak, III, no. 268; R. Shlomoh Zalman Braun, Sha‘arim ha-Meẓuyanim be-Halakhah, II, 80:78; and R. Yissachar Dov Bergman, Ha-Pardes, Kislev 5712. There is, however, no explicit discussion by any of these authorities with regard to the question of whether or not the rabbinic injunction against "causing a sound to be heard" is a blanket prohibition encompassing instruments and utensils which are so designed that they cannot readily be adjusted or repaired on the Sabbath.
The ban against the use of microphones, if predicated upon the prohibition against "causing a sound to be heard," may apply not only to speaking or singing into a microphone but also to listening to such amplified voices. According to some authorities, the prohibition against use of musical instruments applies not merely to those producing the music but also to those listening to it. R. Yechiel Michal Epstein (Arukh ha-Shulḥan 378:5) rules that it is forbidden to allow a radio to remain playing during the Sabbath or to have it turned on and off by means of an automatic clock.10R. Waldenberg, Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, III, no. 16, chap. 12, and IX, no. 21, also forbids listening to a radio on Shabbat for this reason. According to Arukh ha-Shulḥan, the prohibition against playing musical instruments encompasses situations in which the "voice" is emitted automatically "for since the prohibition is [based upon the fear] that perchance he will repair the musical instrument, what difference is there if it plays through human action or of its own accord?" In either event there remains a possibility that a malfunctioning instrument may be repaired.
There are, however, other authorities who clearly maintain that the edict forbidding the creation of sound does not apply to the approximation of the human voice by means of electric current. Rabbi Judah Leib Zirelson (Azei Levanon, no. 10), in a responsum dealing with the permissibility of the use of the telephone on the Sabbath, lists a number of reasons prohibiting the use of this device. Enumerated among these are "giving birth" to an electric circuit, sparking and causing a bell to ring on the other end of the line. Since consideration is given only to the sound produced by the bell, while the question of production of the voice itself is ignored, it may be assumed that this authority did not view the voice produced by electric current as being included in the prohibition against "causing a sound to be heard." Similarly, Rabbi Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach (Sinai, Adar II 5723) maintains that the prohibition against creating a "voice" or sound is limited to sounds produced by direct human action and does not include sounds indirectly produced by the human voice. A similar position is adopted by Teshuvot Maharshag, II, no. 118, and Ẓlaḥ he-Hadash, Kuntres Aḥaron, no. 1.11See also R. Simchah Levy, Ha-Pardes, Iyar 5712; R. Menachem Poliakov, Ha-Darom, Nisan 5718; and R. Shlomoh Goren, Maḥanayim, 26 Iyar 5718.
2. Rabbi Auerbach, however, forbids the use of a microphone on other grounds. R. Yechezkel Landau (Noḍa bi-Yehudah, II, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 30) writes that a parasol opened before the Sabbath may not be used on the Sabbath because the beholder has no way of knowing that the parasol has not been opened on the Sabbath. Rabbi Auerbach argues that the same line of reasoning may be applied to the use of amplification systems since most individuals are not scholars and will not understand the technical differences between a microphone and other electrical appliances and hence may easily be led to biblical transgressions.
3. Rabbi Joseph Tumim (Ha-Pardes, Sivan 5705 and Sivan 5706) presents the interesting argument that microphones may not be used in conjunction with prayer because the microphone constitutes a "musical instrument" and as such its use is forbidden, just as, for example, the use of an organ is forbidden in conjunction with prayer.
4. There is yet another reason cited by numerous authorities in forbidding the use of a microphone on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Rema (Oraḥ Hayyim 252:5) states that it is forbidden to place wheat in a water mill prior to the Sabbath in order that the wheat may be ground during the Sabbath. This is forbidden even though it is publicly known that the grain was placed therein prior to the Sabbath and that the grinding of the wheat takes place automatically. This activity is rabbinically forbidden despite the absence of human labor because avsha milta ("the thing grows loud"). The accompanying noise draws attention to the activity taking place, thereby degrading the Sabbath since passersby may believe that the sounds emanating from the mill signal the performance of acts forbidden on the Sabbath. The prohibition of avsha milta is limited to activities accompanied by sound but encompasses all activities forbidden on Shabbat when accompanied by sound even if performed automatically. Rabbi Auerbach cites authorities who forbid a radio to be turned on before Shabbat or to be regulated by means of a time clock for the same reason. Thus, Rabbi Auerbach argues, even if it be publicized that the radio or microphone is operated automatically, such devices may not be permitted to operate on Shabbat.12Other authorities who cite this reason in ruling against the use of micro-phones include R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabi‘a Omer, I, no. 20, sec. 12; Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, IV, no. 26; Minḥat Yiẓḥak, II, no. 38; and R. Yissachar Dov Bergman, Ha-Pardes, Kislev 5712. This consideration applies to all amplification systems, even to those which cannot possibly be adjusted or repaired on the Sabbath.
The preceding has been limited simply to the question of the permissibility of the use of microphones on Sabbath and Holy Days without consideration of the uses to which the microphone might be put. The over-whelming majority of halakhic authorities rule that a microphone cannot be used for the fulfillment of such mizvot as blowing the shofar, reading the Torah, reading the Megillah, etc., since the sound heard is an artificial one rather than the requisite sound of the shofar or human voice.13Cf., however, Ẓiẓ Eli‘ezer, VIII, no. 11; and Iggrot Mosheh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, II, no. 108.
The microphone question is indeed a highly technical matter and it is most unfortunate that the publicity surrounding this controversy tended to obfuscate the issues. The implication that negative rulings on such matters stem from a reactionary stance and that Orthodox rabbis are stubbornly opposed to all innovation is a lamentable distortion. In actuality, Judaism steadfastly refuses to sacrifice religious observance for the sake of convenience but is happy to welcome any scientific advance which satisfies the requirements of Halakhah.