Halachic Talking Part II

B. Sources

i. Speaker as Halachic Talking

One of the earliest sources that discussed microphones in Halacha was written by Rabbi Spira, the third leader of the Mumkatch Hassidic dynasty. Rabbi Spira’s[1] responsa primarily focused on fulfilling an obligation heard over a speaker where the person talking and the one listening are separated by a distance that includes soiled areas. In classical halachic sources, soiled area separating the one speaking and the one listening, prevents the listener from fulfilling his obligations. However, in the case of a speaker system where the speaker is located near the listener, the person hears the blessing from proximity to himself, and thereby avoids the soiled area that separates the physical space between himself and the person speaking[2]. The question then becomes does the soiled space physically separating the speaker from the listener render the speech halachically nonvalid or since the sound heard does not cross the soiled space it would be halachically valid. The obvious assumption that must be made to even begin pondering this question is that blessings heard over a speaker are attributed to the one speaking and the listener can fulfill his obligation. Rabbi Spira assumed that both are accurate: the soiled area is irrelevant and that the person can fulfill his obligation over a speaker. Nevertheless, he introduced an important caveat that the sound has a distinct “painful” sound and therefore where pure sound produced by a person is required—as is by hilchos shofar—the requirement cannot be fulfilled by use of a microphone. However, all other requirements such as the recitation of blessings or hearing the Megillah will be fulfilled.

            There is a biblical requirement to hear the blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashana. As opposed to other requirements that involve hearing, shofar has a unique rule[3] as stated in the Gemara Rosh Hashana 27b that there cannot be a kol havara such as when blowing into a pit. The precise definition of kol havara is not clear. The Taz understood kol havara as a weak sound and so anytime the sound is not as clear as that which was emitted from a person’s mouth, the obligation for shofar is not fulfilled. The Biur Halacha[4] assumed that kol havara is that which is mixed with other sounds. And so, the sound produced by a shofar that was blown into a pit has a mixture of the original sound and the echo, therefore the obligation would not be fulfilled[5].

            Rabbi Spira’s argument would necessarily assume that a “painful” sound constitutes kol havara and the obligation of shofar would not be fulfilled by use of a speaker. It is not clear the disqualifying feature of the “painful” sound. It is possible that he assumed like Rabbi Frank. Rabbi Frank[6] used a similar argument with an important description that might have significant ramifications on his presentation. Rabbi Frank defined kol haavara as a not clear sound. Therefore, he argued that the obligation of shofar cannot be accomplished by use of a microphone as the sound produced by the speaker is not clear. It would then be prudent to analyze his position in light of modern technological advancements. Sounds over speakers are much clearer today than in years past, it might then follow that Rabbi Frank would allow the use of speakers to fulfill the obligation of blowing shofar[7].

Nevertheless, Rabbi Spira also explained that the sound of the shofar heard over a speaker changes and is “mixed” when played over a speaker and so the obligation would not be fulfilled. Taken literally, it is very difficult to understand what he means as the sound carried over a speaker system is not mixed with any human sound. The argument would be better utilized for analyzing listening to a shofar while wearing an ear bud with the “hear through” function. The “hear through” function uses the microphone of the ear piece that otherwise is intended to block out surrounding sound, to pick up sound and play it over the speaker of the ear piece. Since ear buds do not completely block the surrounding sound, the sound heard is a mix of both the original sound and the sound transmitted through the microphone. More significantly, modern hearing aids often allow for the mixture of natural sound and the amplification of digital sound to allow the patient to hear as close to naturally as possible. As demonstrated in Rabbi Spira’s essay, that would not allow for fulfilling the obligation of hearing shofar but would be adequate for fulfilling the obligation to hear the reading of the megillah. 

            Rabbi Feinstein has numerous responsa on the subject that seemingly conflict with one another. As it is difficult to know which one to emphasize, we will discuss each as separate entities. Rabbi Feinstein 1[8] presented the argument that a patient who required use of a hearing aid is classified as halachically deaf since halacha does not recognize microscopic matter. And therefore, even though the hearing aid is amplifying the sound since it does so through converting the sound wave to electrical impulse and then back to sound wave it is not considered halachic sound. This is directly opposed to Rabbi Feinstein 2[9] where he argued that microphones can be utilized to allow a large audience to hear megillah reading. Rabbi Feinstein presents the novel idea that talking is not limited to sound produced by the vocal cords. But any sound that results from a person talking would be considered halachic talking. While he does not provide a precise definition, it would then follow that any form of a microphone with a speaker would qualify for halachic sound.

While at first glance the argument in Rabbi Feinstein 1 reflects the view that does not consider a speaker as halachic sound, the latter portion of that responsa clearly indicates that he fundamentally disagreed with this position and that, in fact, he believes like the opposing view. Rabbi Feinstein promoted the argument that the very fact that the patient required a hearing aid indicates that he is neurologically incapable of hearing and therefore would halachically be considered deaf. This argument suggests that Rabbi Feinstein was not familiar with the intricacies of hearing aids. Hearing aids only work because the patient is capable of hearing both in the central and peripheral nervous system. Therefore, by Rabbi Feinstein’s own definition along with our understanding of the technology, it would seem that Rabbi Feinstein thinks hearing aids that function as a microphone in the ear would be considered halachic talking. This description of hearing aids and the halachic consequences of such are clearly described by Rabbi Fischer in his essay[10].

Rabbi Feinstein did not limit his position to only microphones heard live. Reading his responsa might allow for the conclusion that recorded sound should also suffice to fulfill obligations. Rabbi Karelitz[11] clearly thought like our interpretation of Rabbi Feinstein’s responsa that any sound that is produced as a result of a person talking would be attributed to that person. He, however, added the important caveat that the sound must be heard immediately after the person produces it. This effectively would disqualify any recording sound from having halachic significance. As opposed to Rabbi Spira’s position above, Rabbi Karelitz understood that the problem with kol havaara is that the echo is delayed from the original sound. Therefore, a speaker that does not have a delay would be considered halachic sound. However, a recording which obviously has a delay would not qualify

Rabbi Frank’s responsa (ibid) might be similar to this line of thought in Rabbi Feinstein’s responsa. Rabbi Frank included two arguments as to why you can fulfill the obligation of hearing megillah with a microphone. One, as discussed above, that there is a mixture of the natural voice and the sound produced by the speaker. And two, similar to Rabbi Feinstein, the sound produced by the speaker is the result of the person talking. However, Rabbi Frank argued that a speaker cannot be utilized for shofar. That position is only logical if he assumed like his first reason, according to the second reason as long as the sound produced is a result of the person blowing then he should fulfill his requirement.

Rabbi Frank’s analysis would result in a very interesting dilemma. The reason shofar could not be performed over a microphone in shul is that two sounds are produced, the initial sound of the shofar and the unclear sound produced by the speaker. Assuming modern advanced speakers produce sound that Rabbi Frank would agree do not pose an issue of kol haavara, would the sound over the speaker in the room where the shofar was blown be considered a second sound or part of the initial sound of shofar? If the former, then the obligation of shofar cannot be fulfilled over a speaker if the shofar can also be heard but it can be fulfilled if heard over a telephone or hearing aid in such a way that the original sound of the shofar is not heard.

Rabbi Orienstein[12] penned an essay strongly in favor of the above positions, with very interesting proofs. He first defined halachic sound based on the Mahar”i Eingal as the resulting “vibrating air” that occurs when a person speaks, such that, the person hearing does not hear the original sound. The original sound caused air to vibrate which caused new sound to be produced and transmitted to the hearing person. It then follows, that is irrelevant the phases that the sound takes. As long as sound is eventually transmitted to the ear, it would qualify as halachic sound and a speaker would be attributed as halachic sound.

It is important to note that Rabbi Orienstein’s analysis seems to skip a logical step. The Mahar”I Eingal may agree that the “vibrating air” is not the original sound that the person emitted, however it never changed form and remained a sound wave. With a microphone and speaker, the sound emitted is converted to an electrical signal and then back to a sound wave. There is no reason to assume the Mahar”I Eingal would consider a speaker halachic sound.

Rabbi Orienstein further supported his claim by comparing listening to shaking lulav. By lulav there is a principle that koach kocho—the action that occurs as a result of his movement—suffices for shaking the lulav. Such that, if one moved a stick that resulted in the lulav moving he would fulfill his obligation. Rabbi Orienstein argued that by halachic sound, the sound that is produced as result of my speaking would qualify as halachic sound. While the principle of the argument is not novel—as we illustrated above Rabbi Feinstein makes a very similar point – the comparison is weak at best. Shaking a lulav requires some form of muscular action, i.e. koach, that causes it to shake. It is not unreasonable to assume that indirectly causing the lulav to move would qualify as koach[13]. However, halachic sound requires the person emitting the noise to be heard by the listener, there are no primary sources that suggest that a sound that results from other sound would qualify.

Rabbi Orenstein also argued that hearing in halacha is defined by a neurological process. Therefore, any changes that occur prior to that point are irrelevant. As long as the person undergoes the neurological process of hearing it is considered halachic sound. As demonstrated in the introduction, this point is fundamentally irrelevant in regard to hearing aids. The halachic discussion with devices that utilize microphones and speakers is does the sound that the speaker emits considered a halachic sound attributed to the person who originally spoke or is it an entirely new sound produced by a machine. The definitions of halachic hearing are completely irrelevant[14]. Moreover, this definition could allow for the erroneous conclusion that hallucinating the sound of the shofar would suffice to fulfill the obligation. A hallucination would result in the neurological process of hearing the shofar in which case according to the strict definition provided by Rabbi Orenstein a person would fulfill his obligation.

Rabbi Halpern[15] defined kol havaara and its effect on shofar as opposed to megillah differently. Kol havaara is the sound waves that are produced as a result of the original sound of the shofar “bouncing” in the pit. By shofar there is a requirement that the sound be the result of the initial sound waves and therefore the mitzva is not fulfilled. However, by all other mitzvot that require hearing halachic sound, the mitzva would be fulfilled[16].

The above analysis leads to three variations within the position that assumes you can fulfill mitzvot with the use of a speaker. The most liberal view, poised by our analyses of Rabbi Feinstein’s responsa along with Rabbis Karelitz and Oreinstein, assumed that a speaker that produces sound as a result of a person talking (or, in the case of shofar, blowing) is attributed to the original person and all obligations can be fulfilled through them. The more conservative views assume that shofar has a different status due to kol haavara and therefore while speakers are often sufficient to fulfill obligations there are two possible reasons why they cannot be used for shofar. Rabbi Spira assumed any sound heard over a speaker is a mixture of sounds which nullifies shofar due to kol havaara. Rabbi Halperin argued that kol havaara is defined as any sound which is not due to the original sound waves emitted by the person and therefore, a speaker cannot be used to fulfill the obligation of shofar.

---

[1] שו”ת מנחת אלעזר ב סימן עב

[2] See שו”ת ציץ אליעזר חלק ח סימן יא ס”ק ט that argued that soiled space would nullify the bracha and one would not fulfill his obligation.

[3] It is unclear why the Achronim established that the din of kol haavara is one that is unique to shofar and does not apply to other areas of halacha as well.

[4] סימן תקפז ד”ה ואם קול

[5] The definition of an echo is very complicated and perhaps necessarily seems to have been ignored by most halachic deciders outside of the definition presented in this article. Any room that is walled and contains furniture offers ample opportunities to interfere with sound waves that are produced by the shofar and thereby, by definition, causing some form of an “echo” before the one hearing the shofar has received the sound waves produced directly by the shofar. Understanding the Mishna literally would make it seemingly impossible to fulfil the obligation of shofar indoors. Dovid Mates for his dissertation for the Bar Ilan School of Education with his mentor Dr. Dror Fixler (an engineer) attempted to define kol haavara in scientific terms. While interesting, the halachic consequences of scientifically defining terms is often nonsignificant.

[6] שו”ת מנחת יצחק ח”ב סי’ קיג

[7] This was also pointed out by Rabbi Navon תחומין ל (תש”ע) קריאת מגילה על ידי חרשת בעלת שתל קוכלארי page 54, footnote 10.

[8] אג”מ אב”ה סימן לג

[9] אג”מ או”ח סימן קח

[10] רבבות אפרים ו או”ח סימן תלו ס”ק א

[11] מנחת שלמה סימן ט, 4

[12] אסיא עז-עח (כרך כ, א-ב) טבת תשס”ו עמוד 23

[13] This is more relevant for a discussion involving prosthetic arms that I hope to discuss in a future article.

[14] However, this point as well as his concluding argument that a hearing aid is close to the ear and just considered part of the auditory system is very relevant for our discussion in the next section on cochlear implants.

[15] ברכת אהרן סימן טז

[16] However, the author in footnote on page רנו clarified Rabbi Halpern’s position as in line with Rabbi Auerbach. In the published letter, Rabbi Halpern was willing to entertain Rabbis Feinstein and Keralitz’s position where there was no alternative (e.g. sick patients in the hospital). Notably, Rabbi Auerbach would not have agreed to compromising on their position as he assumed the opposing view did not understand the physics and as such their opinion is irrelevant. A similar approach was utilized by Rabbi Schachtar in regards to questions involving halachic sounds during the COVID-19 pandemic.