The Kosher Switch saga continues. KosherSwitch Technologies, Inc. (“KSTI”), the maker of this clever device (discussed in this post: link), has published a response to the critiques his invention has received (link). He deserves the right to speak in his defense and raises many important points for consideration. However, in his understandable frustration he has also lamentably lashed out personally at some of his critics.
I am honored that KSTI felt this blog sufficiently important to be the subject of one of the sections of his response. He offers a number of criticisms of my essay. He lists a few inaccuracies in my technical description of the device’s function, important points that, I believe, fail to move the halakhic dial but are worthy of mention. As I wrote in my original post and KSTI seems to agree, his device is built on the misnamed “Gerama switch” but breaks new ground with added features. While the Kosher Switch satisfies some of the criticisms facing the “Gerama switch,” it fails to answer some of the most important concerns and is therefore forbidden according to many significant hakakhic authorities.
KSTI’s most important criticism of my post is that I claim that the Kosher Switch “functions the same way as other switches (from the user’s perspective).” He objects that “[f]rom the user’s perspective, the KosherSwitch(r) Classic does not function the same way as other switches.” I disagree. A Kosher Switch slides in an up-down fashion like many other kinds of switches. It does not move side-to-side, diagonally or clockwise like a dial. It is an up-down switch. From the user’s perspective, you flip it up and down like you do the many other kinds of switches. That was my point in reproducing the pictures of switches in my house juxtaposed to the picture of the Kosher Switch (I cropped the logo, as I cropped all the pictures, so you can compare the actual switches). It is very easy to get used to flipping the Kosher Switch on Shabbos and to then mistakenly flip other switches. That is the issue of “confusion” about which R. Halperin, whom I quoted, objected. The logo may serve to obviate the problem of maris ayin, appearing to violate a prohibition, but it does nothing regarding the confusion of habituating the flipping of switches. Flashing lights and other indicators exist on other kinds of switches and nothing inherently requires the user to look at the lights.
The author then attacks as biased R. Yisrael Rosen, who confirmed in writing that R. Yehoshua Neuwirth only approved Kosher Switch for exigent circumstances and obtained a denial of support from R. Avigdor Nebenzahl (link). He is right and he is wrong. R. Rosen is not a competitor of Kosher Switch but not for lack of trying. Some 30-40 years ago, he came up with similar ideas and was broadly turned down by leading halakhic decisors. He therefore focused his energy on other approaches and building devices for only exigent circumstances. You can imagine his surprise when the very halakhic authorities with whom he regularly discussed these issues for decades suddenly reversed course and entirely permitted something they have long told him is forbidden. For this reason, he is not to be set aside and disparaged as a competitor but valued as one of the world’s leading experts on the subject. His testimony is worth many times that of unknown people like me (see Chullin 7a).
KSTI gives great detail about his process of obtaining rabbinic endorsements. However, his claim that rabbis have been intimidated into retraction is hardly plausible. Some of these rabbis are known for refusing to buckle under pressure and, frankly, there is no evidence of anything other than confirmation rather than intimidation. In particular, R. Nachum Rabinovich wrote a responsum forbidding these types of devices and Kosher Switch quotes him as permitting it! I had a close student ask him about it and he does not recall permitting it but rather stands by his published responsum, which essentially forbids it. There is no intimidation in that. Anyone wishing to know any of these rabbis’ opinions can and will ask them. I have confirmed that R. Yisrael Belsky and R. Moshe Sternbuch both consider Kosher Switch completely forbidden. It is hard to believe that they, or anyone, publicly permitted such a radical device as this without anticipating a surprised public reaction. And if they truly accept it then all they would have to do is respond “Yes, I believe it is permitted.” What intimidation is there?
My theory, which is total conjecture but maintains the respectability of all parties, is that KSTI enthusiastically presented his device to these busy rabbis and overwhelmed them with reading material. In his enthusiasm, he interpreted any interest or even minor approval as complete agreement. Some rabbis completely approved of the device but most others did not. However, they gave various indications of partial approval or at least appreciation (“amaze[ment]“) of his ingenuity and after receiving substantial thanks for the even slightly positive response agreed to write down what they thought was limited praise or approval. Misunderstandings abounded and ad hoc scribbles to please an energetic visitor became taken as complete endorsements.
This is all conjecture. I don’t know what really happened and the only eyewitness account coming from outside Kosher Switch tells a very different story (link). Be that as it may, everyone should consult with their personal halakhic authority before using any new device such as this. If he allows it for you, then feel free to use it. If not, don’t. We don’t decide halakhic practice based on websites and blogs.
And I think the last living talmid of the Brisker Rav was Rabbi Yaakov Nayman.
And was the doctor’s name Shereshevsky?
“Although R. Ben Haim has clarified that he had in mind a community that is about 85% non-Shabbat observant.”
“In the written, signed words of one endorser, R Peretz Steinberg, there will be “prevention of Chilul Shabbos to the masses.”
Looks to me that this is the source of the confusion. Whether the rabbonim were agreeing it could be used lechatchila, or what they were saying is that if they were to be installed in less religious homes, it could reduce chilul Shabbat (ie. be’deeved, if they’re going to turn on lights, at least this goes a long way to making it approach acceptability).
is this a way to prevent a sin? who would oppose that?
“Is this a way to prevent a sin? who would oppose that?”
Perhaps because it’s being marketed in a way that encourages its use not just by the ones who would otherwise be sinning, but to those who until now left their lights alone.
Perhaps if the device were marketed differently, there would not be any significant opposition to it.
With a little more authority in his voice, the Rav just said, turn on the light, which he did.
Presumably, the light would enable the doctor to better examine the patients, see their complexions, facilitate communication. I could definitely see rabbis paskening that a halachic light switch is preferable in such situations.
The whole point of the story is that either 1) in situations of pikuach nefesh you act immediately rather than waiting for a psak, or 2) shabbat is “hutra” rather than “dechuya”, so once pikuach nefesh arises you don’t need to worry about minimizing shabbat violation.
Either way, a psak about which kind of switch should be used would not be relevant.
What nonsense about ‘the last living talmid of the Brisker rav’ – his own son is still alive, and there are other of his talmidim still ‘giving shiur’. R. Elyokim Schlesinger in London is still going strong.
Shlomoh quoted this well known story about RYBS and MS;
“With a little more authority in his voice, the Rav just said, turn on the light, which he did”
Yet, it is also well known that when RYBS accidentally turned on a light in his house on Shabbos, family members found RYBS crying inconsolably because of what was to RYBS not just a Maaseh Misasek, but rather what RYBS knew was Chillul Shabbos, something that he never thought would ever happen in his life.
No, that story about RYBS never happened. It is utterly out-of-character, nonsensical and pure fiction, beyond apocryphal. Why Steve would repeat it here is without any logic. The Rav “knew” no such thing and “he never thought” any such thoughts. Be certain of that.
Orthodox Feminist-whoever you are, I have heard the story repeated by two eminent Talmidei Chachamim who heard directly from family members that RYBS was in fact crying over what he viewed as Chillul Shabbos.
FWIW, I mentioned the story because it showed how RYBS viewed the incident as not just a matter of heter visssur, but as an incident which impacted on a not insignificant aspect of RYBS’s Avodas HaShem, namely Shmiras Shabbos. Halevai that we would view similar transgressions in such a manner.
Orthodox Feminist-Contrary to your comment, it is well known that RYBS was hardly a “Kalte Litvak” in what he regarded as the bases of his religious outlook and observance-RYBS frequently invoked memories of a Chabad cheder rebbe, his memories of RCS making Kiddush, and reciting the Avodas YK, and how RMS reviewed the Avodas YK and the relevant portions of the Yad as a means of enhanicng his appreciation for the Kedushas HaYom.
Orthodox Feminist-Contrary to your comment, it is well known that RYBS was hardly a “Kalte Litvak” in what he regarded as the bases of his religious outlook and observance-RYBS frequently invoked memories of a Chabad cheder rebbe, his memories of RCS making Kiddush, and reciting the Avodas YK, and how RMS reviewed the Avodas YK and the relevant portions of the Yad as a means of enhanicng his appreciation for the Kedushas HaYom. I would be remiss if I did not mention how participants recalled RYBS’s recitation of Hallel after the Pesach Seder.
Steve: Orthodox feminist is a troll. He really agrees with you, but finds a nasty way of making his point. Don’t bother to feed him.
Unlike the controversy over whether the Noda B’Yehuda was a Mekubal or approved of Kabbala, we are dealing with living people here in an age of advanced communication. I read all the “he said” , “he didn’t say” “he changed his mind” “he didn’t change his mind” “he meant this” “no he meant that” and wonder why people don’t embrace the obvious solution: namely, go out to each of these “serious” (as Gil calls them) Poskim, grab your iPhone/Camera and ask very pointed questions and record the answers. Rav Heinemann, put out some multimedia when he was attacked over the issue, Rav Beslky had shiurim published on anisakis. Where are the serious religious journalists? All this conjecture is just academically flaccid!
I did not hear about that story of RYBS, and the maaseh misasek, I read it somewhere. I felt it should not have been publicized, but what do I know?
Isaac; I’ll second that. For the life of mine, I can’t see why there can’t be more closure either. As unfortunate as it may seem, today this alternative seems to be our only plausible option to find out a posek’s opinion. Sit him down, and record it. Otherwise all you’ll end up with will be “no, that’s not what he meant” “it’s not true, he never said anything like that”, or one of my favorites “he only said it on condition it’s not repeated in his name” (gee, thanks for the help then). Mind you, it’s not even an “I meant” or “I said”, it’s a “he meant” or “he said”. Today, it’s nothing direct, only from the mouths of their secretaries after they apply their own censorship.
(I’m not Sephardic, but in truth, I think the Sephardic rabbonim today have more backbone. Now I’m sure you’ll have some hotblooded people throw around some examples of Sephardim changing their mind or the likes, but ha’meivin yavin.)
So let me get this straight.
Say I’m a posek.
A guy comes to me and says to me he’s got a switch that lets people turn lights on and off on Shabbat.
Lights. On and off. On Shabbat.
What do I do?
Do I consult my comprehensive halachic knowledge?
Nope. Too much mental effort. And anyway (sez you) my memory ain’t what it used to be.
Do I … (what is it again that poskim do exactly? oh, right…) ask the guy how it works, maybe pull out a Shulchan Aruch?
You must be joking. I’m a far too busy and important for that.
Do I express mild concern about potential chilul Shabbat? Warn the public about this terrible michshol being perpetrated by a charlatan? Throw a choteh umachte et harrabim out of my office? Or just tell the man, “Uhh, that sounds like a really bad idea. Now go away.”?
Nah, I’d just hate to cause a fuss.
Fiddle-dee-dum, fiddle-dee-doo. What’s a posek to do?
And then–get this–the man pulls out a letter praising himself and his invention, and wishing both lots of success. And asks me to sign it. I mean, I was baffled before, but now, this–this is a riddle wrapped in an enigma inside a potato knish.
So let’s simplify. Multiple choice, three options:
A. I sign the letter if and only if I consider the switch obviously and indisputably permissible. (Crazy, right?)
B. I have no earthly idea how the switch works; if it is muttar, or under what circumstances; if it will lead to massive chilul Shabbat; or if permissible use, if that’s even possible, will enhance Shabbat or destroy it.
So naturally, I sign. Because what could possibly go wrong? Nobody would ever misinterpret that as approval, right?
C. Same as (B). At least initially.
But then things get controversial, and it looks like I might get called the L-word.* And THAT’s when I get all “not one inch.”
(Hey, you can call me apathetic, lazy, incompetent, gullible and even senile all the livelong day. But to suggest that I might bend to political pressure–how dare you, sir!)
(* Lenient)
Larry Kaplan-GMT and thanks for the advice!
Dave: Entertaining. Really. If we were to make this whole episode into an Improv performance, your narrative would be right on target. Because for those of us who read between the lines, that is what’s happening.
Dave we all realize thats whats happening(more or less). What bothers us is the fact that our LEADERS dont have the backbone to go with the “please leave me alone” option. the one where he kindly explains he does not want to get involved in such controversial innovations. Or if he does, then take a good week or two, research the topic and come out with a solid conclusion. Its like the poskim dont realize people go to them for psak or something.
So if Larry Kaplan calls someone a troll and says to ignore him, Gil does not delete that as a personal attack. Got it. Gmar Tov.
Steve, whoever you are, I have heard the story is false from two even more eminent Talmidei Chachamim who heard directly from closer family members that RYBS in fact never cried over what he viewed as Chillul Shabbos.
R’ Gil,
How can you say that intimidation is easy to respond to? You yourself publicized a letter opposing Weprin for Congress saying that you knew was it forged. The alleged signatory was intimidated into not admitting to the public it was forged and he never signed in the first place.
He wasn’t intimidated. They sent me a copy of the signed letter against Weprin.