Halachic Hearing Part II

B. Sources

As we discussed in the previous chapter, Rabbi Aurbach analyzed hearing aids as ineffective for halachic purposes as the patient hears the sound that was produced by the speaker not the sound of the person who spoke. Dr. Brama[1] assumed that Rabbi Aurbach would then not be concerned by a cochlear implant which completely replaces the ear. The CI simply replaces the organic ear with an inorganic one. Importantly, Dr. Brama has no reason to assume that Rabbi Aurbach would agree with his position, nor does he have a reason to assume he would disagree with him. Rabbi Aurbach never defined what he considered halachic hearing. Nevertheless, while it is difficult to use halachic sources to illuminate which position is more accurate, from a biological perspective Dr. Brama’s position is quite logical. 

            Conversely, Rabbi Weiss[2] agreed with Rabbi Aurbach’s position but assumed in contrary to Dr. Brama that CI are not considered halachic hearing. Rabbi Weiss argued that the fundamental issue with hearing aids is that they are artificially processed. Artificially processed sounds cannot be considered sound for halachic purposes. Consistent with that theme, CI that produce electrical stimulus by artificially processing sound waves would not result in hearing that can fulfill halachic obligations.

            Rabbi Weiss’ position is puzzling for two reasons. First, Rabbi Aurbach never advanced the argument that the issue with hearing aids was that they produced by artificially processing sound waves. Rabbi Aurbach’s concern was the sound produced through the speaker was not considered sound for halachic purposes. Second, Rabbi Weiss at the end of his piece argued that there is no difference between the “voice heard” from a HA or a CI. CI do not produce sound only electrical signaling, it is unclear what Rabbi Weiss meant by that argument or what it had to do with his original point about artificial processing.

Contrary to Rabbi Weiss, Rabbi Bleich[3], at the conclusion of his article on CI[4], provided a possibility to differentiate CI and HA. “If such a distinction is to be drawn, it must lie in the fact that electrical stimuli are ephemeral whereas resultant waves or vibrations of such electrical stimuli are perceivable phenomena of which Halacha takes cognizance.” Accordingly, processed sound that directly produces electrical stimuli is insignificant in halacha and therefore CI would be considered hearing whereas processed sound that produces waves or vibrations (such as in HA) would be significant in halacha and result in the sound produced to not be attributed to the person who originally made them.

            Rabbi Navon[5] also strongly disagreed with Dr. Brama’s position. Instead, he advocated that halacha would only recognize hearing if it occurs by use of the natural ear, anything else is inherently missing the basic requirements of hearing. Dr. Brama does not provide any halachic sources to justify his position and for good reason. Dr. Brama was simply making an observation, that is, biological hearing requires a vessel that can convert sound waves to electrical impulses. There is no reason to assume that halacha would favor a natural over an artificial means of doing so. Rabbi Navon could have similarly made an argument in the opposite direction, namely, halacha recognizes hearing if it occurs in the by use of the ears. However, doing so requires utilizing a very narrow definition of how halacha considers hearing. As described above, hearing is a complex process and there is no reason to assume halacha would not appreciate those intricacies when considering the definition of hearing.

            Nevertheless, Rabbi Navon does provide a source to support his position. It is commonly accepted that eating in halacha is not defined by nourishment received by the body but rather by the taste of the food in the mouth[6]. This is the basis of the assumption of a question presented to Rabbi Feinstein regarding someone who could not fast on yom kippor who wanted to know if they could instead use an IV drip to obtain sustenance[7]. Rabbi Navon reached the conclusion that the pathway is imperative in halacha and as eating requires food entering the mouth, hearing requires that the sound waves enter the body through the natural ear.

            Rabbi Navon’s comparison is quite novel. Rabbi Navon used the principle of halachic eating as a paradigm for all halachic requirements involving biological processes. However, it is not at all clear that such a paradigm does in fact exist. Every biological process that has halachic implications requires its own analysis. Regarding eating, the halachic requirement is that a person tastes the food. Hearing requires its own analysis as to what the halachic requirements are. Logically then, using Rabbi Navon’s own analysis might lead to the opposite conclusion. The assumption by eating was that satiation was the halachic requirement. Only because of sources that specifically point to taste as a crucial component of eating did we assume that the process by which food is digested is the critical qualification. Otherwise, the fact that food was digested would be considered halachic eating. We could then argue that eating is the exception, but all other biological processes—including hearing— follow the rule, the pathway is irrelevant only the end result is significant. 

            This argument was also alluded to by Rabbi Rabinowitz[8] and he provided a few sources that illustrate his position. He lists numerous places throughout Tanach where the word shoma (hearing) is utilized to described a prophetic conversation with God, although the voice was only in the person’s head[9]. Rabbi Rabinowitz surmised from these sources that hearing is a neurological process and not one that requires the use of the natural ear. While it is difficult to prove halachic principles by use of midrashic sources, when no other sources are available, they could at the very least provide some support to one position over the other[10]. If so, a person suffering from auditory hallucinations would be considered actually hearing for halachic principles. However, there would not be any practical halachic consequences as to fulfill an obligation that requires hearing the person who created the sound must also be obligated. Otherwise, a woman or boy under thirteen would be able to blow shofer and fulfill the obligation for men. A hallucinated sound cannot be considered a sound produced by an obligated person.

            Similarly, Rabbi Sternbach[11] responsa on CI seems to be directly opposed to the assumptions presented by Rabbi Navon’s thinking. Rabbi Sternbach heavily focused his response on rebuffing claims that hearing requires a specific model that if deviated from would result in non-halachic­ hearing. He disagreed with the argument that hearing with a CI should be invalid as it is shlo k’darka. Not the usual way of doing something is an argument limited to actions. Hearing is a passive experience and as such it is irrelevant how that hearing was accomplished. Furthermore, even if the argument of shlo k’darka could be made, it would still be irrelevant as the ultimate goal was accomplished. Rabbi Sternbach made the final point that k’darko can also be viewed as the personal way that each person hears. As such, someone who hears with a CI’s “natural” way of hearing is through the device.

[1] תחומין כד

[2] TorahBase שמיעת קול שופר במכשיר שמיעה (תשס”ו)

[3] Tradition p. 54

[4] Rabbi Bleich published a second article on CI where he revokes his position in the first article based on faulty information. As such, we do not discuss the second article here.

[5] תחומין ל (תש”ע) קריאת מגילה על ידי חרשת בעלת שתל קוכלארי דף 51

[6] See: מנחת חינוך מצוה שיג, שו”ת אחיעזר ח”ג סי’ סא, שו”ת צ”א ח”י כה, כא, אג”מ או”ח ח”ג סי’ צ

[7] אג”מ שם

[8] תחומין לא (תשע”א) דף 27

[9] Rabbi Rosen, the previous editor of Tchumin, in footnote 2 argued that the “eating” was used to describe the maan even though that was a miracle food and therefore even by miracle hearing the sound may have travelled through the ear. This argument is difficult to understand. Assumingly miracle hearing was purely a neurological process similar to some form of auditory hallucination. The miracle by maan was that it appeared, not the process through which it was consumed. Maan was eaten just like any other food. A similar comparison is found by the miracle of Channuka. The finding of the jug of oil and the fact that it lasted for eight days was the miracle. Actually lighting it was not a miracle, it is hard to imagine that they would have fulfilled any mitzva if that were the case.

[10] For the full discussion as to the use of midrashim for halacha see: דרכי הוראה חלק ב, נודע ביהודה יו”ד מהד”ת סי’ קסא, שבות יעקב ח”ב שאלה קעח, עין זכר מערכת ה אות נח. See also two editions of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s lectures on “Concepts in Halakha as Elaborated Upon by the Aggada and Kabbala” in a special digital edition in Tradition (2023) and in Hakirah 33 (2023).

[11] עטרת שלמה ט עמוד קנג