From: hayim@locus.com (Hayim Hendeles)
Subject: Re: Electricity on Shabbat (was Conservative Halacha)
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:50:38 GMT

In article <9209142253.AA06932@robocop.NYU.EDU> baker@ROBOCOP.NYU.EDU (Jonathan Baker) writes:
>I recall a few months ago someone posted here (or was it on Genie?) a summary
>of something written by R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, a sage of the last 
>generation.  About 30-40 years ago, he wrote an article that went 
>	...
> However, he concluded with the statement that the
>Chazon Ish, a sage of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, had banned
>electricity on shabbat, so it was forbidden on shabbat.  
>	This argument gives me two problems:
>	1) It is an example of proof by blatant assertion (on the part of
>the Chazon Ish), even when there is compelling evidence to the contrary.  I
>don't buy this kind of argument (yet), ...

Stop and think for a second. Clearly Rabbi Auerbach shlit"a feels that
the Chazon Ish was much greater then him. Otherwise, he would have
argued with the Chazon Ish's decision, and would have ruled otherwise ---
which he didn't. Erego, he is not arguing on the Chazon Ish, but
at best, has difficulty understanding the Chazon Ish's ruling. 
Therefore, even Rabbi Auerbach himself agrees with the final ruling,
although he may/may not understand it.

Furthermore, the Chazon Ish did not base his ruling on a blatant
assertion. The Chazon Ish analyzed the situation, and ruled that
electricity is 'Boneh' (at the least) -- maybe 'make bpatish' also, I
am not sure about that. In any event, it was a legitamate ruling.
(Others maintain it's a prohibition based on fire).

Whether you or I or even Rabbi Auerbach himself understands the Chazon
Ish is totally irrelevant. The Chazon Ish was great enough to have made
such a ruling, and wise enough that even today's Torah Sages will bow
down to his rulings.

And there is no compelling evidence to the contrary, whatsoever.  Noone
can produce evidence that electricity should be permitted - all we can
do is try and understand the Chazon Ish's ruling.  Even if I cannot
understand it, is not evidence that it should be permitted. I have no
doubts, and am sure Rabbi Auerbach would agree, that were the Chazon-Ish
here, he could answer all your questions.  (Because if Rabbi
Auerbach didn't belive this, he would have argued - which he didn't)

	...
>	
>	A friend sympathized about my problem no. 1, and said that this was
>why we need a sanhedrin, to resolve such disputes.  So here's an unrelated
>question.  Apparently, convening a sanhedrin does not need to wait for the
>Messiah.  There was an attempt to do so in the 1500's, but it failed.  Does
>anyone know anything about this?  It's supposed to be possible, based on some-
>thing in the Mishneh Torah, as a precondition to Messiah.
> 
> Jonathan J. Baker

This was a fascinating episode in Jewish History. This was shortly 
after the terrible tragedies had occurred in Spain, where some Jews
had allowed themselves (regretably) to be baptized. For some reason,
at this period in time, there was a strong feeling that Moshiach
was about to come. And people began to tremble - here they were,
several years earlier they had been baptized, and what is going
to happen to them when Moshiach comes? 

Without getting into technical details, they concluded that the
establishment of a Sanhedrin (who could deal with their past sins)
was the only solution. But Sanhedrin requires 'smicha'
(lit. ordination) which we no longer have. So what can be done?

I believe, it was the Mahri Bei Rav, in Tzfat, one of the leading Sages
of the time, who issued a ruling based on the Rambam, that if all
(nearly all?) of the Chachomim will agree on a certain individual, he
becomes a 'musmach' (lit. ordained), and can in turn give smicha to
others.

So they gave the Mahri Bei Rav smicha, who in turn gave smicha to
Rav Yosef Kairo (the other of the Shulchan Oruch), and 2 others 
(I forget whom).

While this was going on, the Leading Sage in Jerusalem, the Radvaz,
was very much against this. (I don't know why.)

And I believe that it was because of his opposition, the smicha died out.

But I don't think it a coincidence that Rav Yosef Cairo receieved the
smicha. If anyone in Klal Yisroel ever needed it, it was him. Because
he was the one who wrote the monumental work the Shulchan Oruch, around
which all Jewish Law revolves.

Hayim Hendeles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish