Thank you for including an halachic opinion… There are others also!
Bravo! The Kosher Switch really attempted to switch – indeed to switch kosher with something clearly NOT kosher. Thank you Rabbi Belsky for speaking clearly and firmly.
What a great letter and spot-on P’sak! Yasher Kochachem Rebbi!
CASE CLOSED!
With respect to Rabbi Belsky, his letter would be more compelling to those who are in genuine doubt, and there are Rabbonim with good semichas who have said this switch is OK, if he had written less in anger and more in substance. I am not in doubt at all. Even if this switch were clearly mutar, in the same way as I do not use a certified mutar “Shabbos elevator” because I feel it violates the spirit of Shabbos, I would not use this switch.
“If the Sanhedrin would be empowered, that act would be punishable by Misas Beis Din”!
Wow!
I guess this “switch” will break along 2 derachim.
Those who hold of the Brooklyn Eruv will have no qualms or guilt using the switch. Why not? Its all about comfort.
Those who are chared al divar Hashem, will run away from it like fire.
The device has no place in halocho and is like a regular switc? I’m curious why a similar letter was not sent out blasting Tzomet who make many gromo devices. If the reason is that Tzomet advertises its products for a different purpose then shouldn’t the letter say its meant for specialized purposes and not general purposes? Rabbi Belsky makes no such distinction. By saying there is no difference between this and a regular switch Rabbi Belsky has gone against all the chashuveh Rabbonim who held that the KS is, at minimum, good for specialized purposes and against all the rabbonim who endorse Tzomet, too. And all those chashuveh rabbonim who saw the KS device and while not giving hecherim, gave blessings, how could they give a blessing to a device that would render anyone who uses it chayiv missa? Rabbi Belsky’s letter does not make sense to me.
I hope every rov comes out against it like this yasher koach rabbi belsky
Shkoyach besalel, very insightful
I guess from now on all the people who are unfortunately in wheelchairs must stay home for Shabbos and can never go to shul, because all the gramma devices are chillul shabbos gamur
And all the poskim who allowed gramma devices bish’as tzorech are complete Amaratzim
Shkoyach besalel, very insightful
I guess from now on all the people who are unfortunately in wheelchairs must stay home for Shabbos and can never go to shul, because all the gramma devices are chillul shabbos gamur. Very sad
I’m not the one to thank rabbi Belsky, but thank you YWN for posting this extremely important psak.
Also the Gemoro in maseches shabbos from daf kuf yud tes and for the next 5 or 6 daf deals with Geromo ways of doing melochos. But all of the scenarios described are basically what Rav belsky calls Rube Goldberg devices. Clearly the holocho looks differently at direct melochos and Rube Goldberg devices. So for Rav belsky to pejoratively dismiss the ks as a Rube Goldberg device the Rav is saying its assur but I won’t tell you why. Like a previous commentor wrote the letter seems heavy on the emotion and light on the law.
I would only trust a psak from Rav Ovadia ztl on this.
Dear “besalel”,
Before arguing with a gadol baTorah in matters of Halacha and accusing him bias, please learn the proper vocabulary. The word you are looking for is “heiterim” not “hecherim”.
“curiosity”: thanks for pointing out the typo. i am not arguing with anyone. i just want to understand how is it that a different gadol batorah looked at the device and said no melocho but usser because of zilzul shabbos and this gadol batorah says its a melocho gmura? the wide consensus among all the poiskim to have spoken on the topic until now is its either no melocho but zilzul shabbos, no melocho but bimkoim tzoirich because its a gromo or not a melocho. now comes this letter and says its a direct melocho no different than a regular switch. now i understand that different gedoilim can arrive at different conclusions but if what Rav Belsky Shlita says is true than his first fight should have been with Tzomet. So I don’t chas vesholim want to accuse anyone of anything but when i look at the letter i think something is not right with rav belsky shlitas letter.
Doesn’t use of an eiruv show that the person thinks that Shabbos is a nuisance and a problem to be solved?
besalel & avreimi
There are always some avant garde ‘rabbi’ who wishes , by pushing the envelope,to make himself into the hero of the moment {stakhovnite in soviet Russia} for those who prefer they would have been born less orthodox
[While Tzomet has made some controversial though arguably acceptable devices,
anyone who studies they’re rationales:caveat emptor ]
Most of the Rabbi’s that supposedly came out for the KS, later retracted their statements. They either weren’t given the facts or their speeches were edited to look as if they held of it. Or in the case of Rabbi Mizrahi, it was taken out of context.
I think the real substance of Rav Belskys letter is the last paragraph but is getting little to no discussion.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
19 Responses
Thank you for including an halachic opinion… There are others also!
Bravo! The Kosher Switch really attempted to switch – indeed to switch kosher with something clearly NOT kosher. Thank you Rabbi Belsky for speaking clearly and firmly.
What a great letter and spot-on P’sak! Yasher Kochachem Rebbi!
CASE CLOSED!
With respect to Rabbi Belsky, his letter would be more compelling to those who are in genuine doubt, and there are Rabbonim with good semichas who have said this switch is OK, if he had written less in anger and more in substance. I am not in doubt at all. Even if this switch were clearly mutar, in the same way as I do not use a certified mutar “Shabbos elevator” because I feel it violates the spirit of Shabbos, I would not use this switch.
“If the Sanhedrin would be empowered, that act would be punishable by Misas Beis Din”!
Wow!
I guess this “switch” will break along 2 derachim.
Those who hold of the Brooklyn Eruv will have no qualms or guilt using the switch. Why not? Its all about comfort.
Those who are chared al divar Hashem, will run away from it like fire.
The device has no place in halocho and is like a regular switc? I’m curious why a similar letter was not sent out blasting Tzomet who make many gromo devices. If the reason is that Tzomet advertises its products for a different purpose then shouldn’t the letter say its meant for specialized purposes and not general purposes? Rabbi Belsky makes no such distinction. By saying there is no difference between this and a regular switch Rabbi Belsky has gone against all the chashuveh Rabbonim who held that the KS is, at minimum, good for specialized purposes and against all the rabbonim who endorse Tzomet, too. And all those chashuveh rabbonim who saw the KS device and while not giving hecherim, gave blessings, how could they give a blessing to a device that would render anyone who uses it chayiv missa? Rabbi Belsky’s letter does not make sense to me.
I hope every rov comes out against it like this yasher koach rabbi belsky
Shkoyach besalel, very insightful
I guess from now on all the people who are unfortunately in wheelchairs must stay home for Shabbos and can never go to shul, because all the gramma devices are chillul shabbos gamur
And all the poskim who allowed gramma devices bish’as tzorech are complete Amaratzim
Shkoyach besalel, very insightful
I guess from now on all the people who are unfortunately in wheelchairs must stay home for Shabbos and can never go to shul, because all the gramma devices are chillul shabbos gamur. Very sad
I’m not the one to thank rabbi Belsky, but thank you YWN for posting this extremely important psak.
Also the Gemoro in maseches shabbos from daf kuf yud tes and for the next 5 or 6 daf deals with Geromo ways of doing melochos. But all of the scenarios described are basically what Rav belsky calls Rube Goldberg devices. Clearly the holocho looks differently at direct melochos and Rube Goldberg devices. So for Rav belsky to pejoratively dismiss the ks as a Rube Goldberg device the Rav is saying its assur but I won’t tell you why. Like a previous commentor wrote the letter seems heavy on the emotion and light on the law.
I would only trust a psak from Rav Ovadia ztl on this.
Dear “besalel”,
Before arguing with a gadol baTorah in matters of Halacha and accusing him bias, please learn the proper vocabulary. The word you are looking for is “heiterim” not “hecherim”.
“curiosity”: thanks for pointing out the typo. i am not arguing with anyone. i just want to understand how is it that a different gadol batorah looked at the device and said no melocho but usser because of zilzul shabbos and this gadol batorah says its a melocho gmura? the wide consensus among all the poiskim to have spoken on the topic until now is its either no melocho but zilzul shabbos, no melocho but bimkoim tzoirich because its a gromo or not a melocho. now comes this letter and says its a direct melocho no different than a regular switch. now i understand that different gedoilim can arrive at different conclusions but if what Rav Belsky Shlita says is true than his first fight should have been with Tzomet. So I don’t chas vesholim want to accuse anyone of anything but when i look at the letter i think something is not right with rav belsky shlitas letter.
Doesn’t use of an eiruv show that the person thinks that Shabbos is a nuisance and a problem to be solved?
besalel & avreimi
There are always some avant garde ‘rabbi’ who wishes , by pushing the envelope,to make himself into the hero of the moment {stakhovnite in soviet Russia} for those who prefer they would have been born less orthodox
[While Tzomet has made some controversial though arguably acceptable devices,
anyone who studies they’re rationales:caveat emptor ]
Most of the Rabbi’s that supposedly came out for the KS, later retracted their statements. They either weren’t given the facts or their speeches were edited to look as if they held of it. Or in the case of Rabbi Mizrahi, it was taken out of context.
I think the real substance of Rav Belskys letter is the last paragraph but is getting little to no discussion.