Fitbit on Shabbos

Avodah
1

: I can't answer all of your questions but I can throw out one
: possibility for one issue, the motion detectors. Rav Rabinovitch has
: ruled that the basic issue with these devices are "ovdah d'chol". ...
: Therefore, RR concludes that any device set off when someone passes
: by these devices is not a problem.
: http://ravtzair.blogspot.co.il/2014/07/blog-post_6.html

Related question.... The Fitbit.

Many of the pedometers, sleep trackers, etc... have no display. Of
those that do, they generally display the time and only show exercise
and health info after one presses a button. Typically they sync to a
phone, tablet, or computer via bluetooth and there you can keep track
of progress. (Which is why some devices don't even bother with a 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.

I presume this is either gerama or not even gerama.

If gerama, it might be permissible only to someone who is morbidly obese
or has a sleeping disorder or some other medical need. There is a nafqa
mina lemaaseh.

Thoughts?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

2

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

3

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.

4

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>

5

: 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

6

: 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

7

: 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

8

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

9

There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible

actions,
but in my experience this idea is very new. ....
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

I don't know if this is the same kind of thing or not, but it's always been
mutar to walk around outside on Shabbos without worrying that you might be
stepping on ants or other small bugs that you didn't notice and didn't
mean to kill.

--Toby Katz
t613k@aol.com
..

10

This is many ways similar to the use of electronic water meters on shabbos.
The meter has no external display that changes and all it does on Shabbos
is record how much water you are using. The Charedi poskim in israel have
all assumed that it is absolutely forbidden. You can see the kol korehs
here:
http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2012/09/using-electronic-water-meters-on-shabbos.html

11

This could be different because even if you walk on grass there is no guarantee that you're going to kill anything. Whereas in today's digital world, you walk in various cities, you're going to activate some circuits somewhere.

Ben

12

: 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?

We are comparing two ways of making the door open. If making the door open
is not a halachic problem, then there is no contrast.

I am saying that nothing physical happens to an electric eye or UV sensor
to cause the motor to go on. However, with the mat, one is moving two
metal plates together (or a conductive tape against a plate). Cut away
the rubber, and you would see the circuit close. There is a visible cause
and a visible effect.

Even if part of the causality is only explainable by appeal to the quantum
scale.

(BTW, atoms are mostly vacuum. It's only quantum scale repulsion of
electrons that fully explains why hitting a ball with a bat changes the
course of the ball; why things don't just go through eachother.)

...
: 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?

It wouldn't be the motion of the electronc, even if they were macroscopic.
You might as well prohibit flushing toilets and rolling marbles down a
ramp, if one inherently prohibites the giving elecrons a chance to use
their potential energy (voltage).

All of the theories about why electricity is assur depend on the
visible effects of the cercuit, or the visible making of a circuit,
not the moving of current itself. (Except of course RSZA, who seems
to be saying electricity is assur because we all decided it was assur,
and thereby created an issur derbbanan even without a Sanhedrin.)

: 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?

Pesiq reishei delo nicha lei. Also on that list: sparking, unless the
motor's spin rate is based on the frequency of the AC current coming in.
But PRDNL wouldn't help with a deOraisa. (RYE Spektor and ROY permit
it for a derabbanan, the MB only for a double-derabbanan.)

Water meters were mentioned. I posted about PRDNL anhd water meters
in 2012 <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n105.shtml#11&gt;\.
Click on the subject line and see the thread.

: 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." ...

That's OC 4:84.

Who doesn't talk about the invisible, but about electric power. "Vreo'in
zeh bechush", although he means you can hear it from the loudspeaker. I do
not see RMF saying that power that goes into results that in principle
you cannot sense would be assur.

: 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.

But another part of the permissibility of speaking in the presence of
someone with a hearing aid is that at times even with the hearing aid,
the user doesn't hear anything, thus ruling out pesiq reishei, reducing
it to davar she'ein miskavein.

The problem I have with your "it sounds to me" is that it begs the
question: Can there be havarah that can't be sensed? (Including: Can
there be havarah if something burns below yad soledes bo?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

13

R' Micha Berger's posts are very well thought-out. I've reached the limits
of my knowledge on this topic.

I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great
example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos,
when we aren't even sure of what the issur is?

RMB wrote:

... RSZA, who seems to be saying electricity is assur because we
all decided it was assur, and thereby created an issur derbbanan
even without a Sanhedrin.

Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago, where
we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his conclusion, or
whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads him to believe and
then checks it with the sources. In the current case, I would suggest that
because electricity is a new thing (apologies to Koheles), the poskim have
had no choice but to go by their feelings.

And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches
Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need to
avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we *know* are
working, but *appear* to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are
issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really can't
complain.

Akiva Miller

14

A study of Dayan Usher Weiss on LED lights in his Tshuvos will reveal
his Shita that such things are likely to be considered an issur under the
rubric of Makeh B'patish. I didn't merit understanding all the halachic
logic but I feel he would apply it here as well.

We can be halachically exploitative and also include the view that your
walking on Shabbos should not be the same as Chol! I'm sure many of us
have seen the strange Shabbos walk avoiding large steps. Walking with
a Fitbit may possibly be construed as transgressing this possuk in Nach?

15

Yes indeedy. Which brings us back to a topic from a few months ago,
where we asked whether a posek learns the sources and reaches his
conclusion, or whether he paskens from what his own Da'as Torah leads
him to believe and then checks it with the sources. In the current case,
I would suggest that because electricity is a new thing (apologies to
Koheles), the poskim have had no choice but to go by their feelings.

And if so, the same would apply to this particular application of Meleches
Elektri: Each posek will decide for himself whether (on Shabbos) we need
to avoid Fitbits and security cameras and other devices that we know are
working, but appear to be as inert as a rock. And if those psakim are
issued with little or no explanation beyond "it's obvious!", I really
can't complain.
Akiva Miller

Pretty much what R' Asher Weiss says un putting electricity in the maakeh
bpatish category defined as things that chazal didn't fit in other
categories. However I think he would say gdolei haposkim will come to
a consensus, not "each for himself" on major categories.

KT
Joel Rich

16

RAM entered the discussion with:

There seems to be an idea that Hilchos Shabbos ignores invisible actions,
but in my experience this idea is very new.

And appears to be trying to leave with:

I often rant about the importance of clear language, and this is a great
example. How can we possibly test the boundaries of electricity on Shabbos,
when we aren't even sure of what the issur is?

(I agree that we lack clarity here, but I am not sure why RAM thinks
it's a problem with the language rather than the ideas themselves.)

Well, except that this notion that halakhah doesn't concern itself with
phenomenona that people cannot experience unaided (in any situation)
isn't limited to a discussion of electricity or even of Shabbos.

The idea that canges internal to a chip in a fitbit wouldn't be an
issue for hilkhos Shabbos (until there is some macroscopic effect of
those changes) is by parallel to discussions of the permissibility of
drinking water that contains creatures about the same size as a trace
(thinkg "wire") on a chip.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

17

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>

18

: I thought of another issur -- taking a photo with a film camera is
: Hachanah, because you're only taking it for the result that you will
: get in the Chol, after you develop the film. But this is also a d'oraysa.

Return back to nidon didan (from the subject line)...

A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the same
reasoning would apply.

But many other such devices can be used as a digital watch on Shabbos.
So carrying it around -- even if you want the step tracking -- is not
ONLY for the tracking.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

19

Regarding hachanah, R' Micha Berger wrote:

A fitbit really has no function until after Shabbos, so the
same reasoning would apply.

True, but hachana is a problem only if specific actions are taken to do
that preparation. For example, washing one's hands over a sink full of
dirty dishes is okay, even if one likes the idea that the dishes will get
wet, provided that he'd be washing his hands there anyway, even if the sink
was empty. So too for the Fitbit, which is already attached to whatever,
and one is not doing any specific action for the Fitbit.

Akiva Miller