Halachot of Zoom

I. Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has created various new halachic questions, including the permissibility of using Zoom during the Pesach seder. Many families have found it difficult to spend the holiday without their extended relatives and have opted to remain connected virtually. This has sparked a global controversy regarding the use of electronic devices during religious observances, such as using these devices on Shabbat and fulfilling obligations transmitted over electronic devices. The debate surrounding the use of Zoom during Pesach Seder thus raises fundamental questions regarding the permissibility of fulfilling religious obligations through electronic media, as well as the nature of halachic sound^[1].

II. Fulfilling Obligations

The halachic conditions for fulfilling religious obligations through someone else include having someone who is obligated in the same mitzva say the necessary components and ensuring that the person who wishes to fulfill their obligation hears the sound emitted by the former. The question of whether electronic sound qualifies as halachic sound is subject to three main interpretations in the Rabbinic literature. One position argues that microphones produce a mix of human and electronic sound, whereas another argues that any sound that results from human voice is considered halachic sound, and a third position maintains that electronic sound does not replace human voice.

Rabbi Waldenberg provides an in-depth analysis of this issue and argues that the sound heard over speakers constitutes a mixture of human and electronic voice. According to his analysis, any mitzva that requires a pure human voice, such as Shofar, cannot be performed over a speaker, while other mitzvot, such as reading Megillah, can be performed in this manner. However, his analysis assumes that microphones function as a megaphone, where the human voice is heard alongside the electronic sound produced by the speakers, which may not be accurate.

On the other hand, Rabbi Feinstein’s position initially appears to support Rabbi Waldenberg’s analysis, but upon further examination, his stance is uncertain. He agrees that the obligation of Megillah reading can be fulfilled through hearing aids, which pose the same halachic dilemma as microphones. However, he suggests that Torah reading cannot be fulfilled through the use of a microphone, partly because he does not consider it to be human voice.

The Chazon Ish offers a novel perspective on the halachic understanding of microphones, arguing that the obligation to hear a human voice is fulfilled by hearing any sound resulting from human voice. Therefore, microphones that produce sound as a result of human input are considered halachic sound. Importantly, the Chazon Ish adds a caveat that the sound must be immediate. Thus, recordings of human voice that produce sound when played, even though they are the result of human voice, are not considered halachic sound^[2].

Rabbi Auerbach, in a compelling argument, maintains that only sound produced directly by a person is considered halachic sound, meaning that no mitzvah can be accomplished through any sound transmitted by electronic speakers, regardless of its original source.

The above analysis demonstrates that two approaches exist in halacha to consider sound: either only sound produced directly by a person is considered sound, or electronic sound can also be included as halachic sound. These two approaches have various consequences, as illustrated in the following section. While many areas of halacha require hearing a human voice, such as kol isha and Megillah reading, only the latter position considers hearing over some form of speaker system to be considered halachic hearing.^[3] This perspective permits people to fulfill their mitzva through shoma k’onea, and it also allows for the use of electronic devices during religious observances, such as kiddush during the Pesach Seder.

III. Sound on Shabbat

The topic of sound on Shabbat is a complex one, and it is influenced by two possible prohibitions: shema yitakin and avsha milsa. Avsha milsa is a rabbinic decree that prohibits leaving a utensil running on Shabbat if it is performing a prohibited activity, such as grinding wheat kernels. On the other hand, shema yitakin is a gezira from the Gemara that prohibits playing instruments on Shabbat due to the fear that one may fix them if they break. Since most poskim agree with Rav Shlomo Zalmen’s thesis on electricity it is very difficult to argue that the sound produced by leaving a phone on over Shabbat is prohibited.

However, the Rema extends the prohibition of shema yitakin to any object whose purpose is to make noise, including door knockers^[4]. The question of whether using Zoom on Shabbat is permissible depends on these prohibitions and on the previous section’s discussion regarding the nature of sound heard over electronic speakers^[5]. While most poskim agree with Rav Shlomo Zalmen’s thesis on electricity and the sound produced by leaving a phone on over Shabbat, it may still fall under the category of shema yitakin according to the Rema’s expansion of the prohibition.

However, the Biur Halacha introduces an important caveat to the Rema’s notion that shema yitakin includes items intended to make noise. Namely, the Rema’s expansion does not apply in any situation where there is a makom h’dchak, as he assumes that the inclusion of a kli whose purpose is to make noise is based on uvdin d’chol. Therefore, in pressing situations, the Rema’s restrictions do not apply, and using Zoom or similar technology would be permissible.

Nevertheless, defining the parameters of the Biur Halacha’s caveat is a difficult task. While it may not be possible to provide a precise answer, it can easily be argued that in situations where there is even a slight concern for psychological worry, the Biur Halacha will allow the use of Zoom on Shabbat.

Furthermore, according to the Biur Halacha’s analysis, ovdin d’chol would only be an issue if the utensil was not miyuchad l’shabbat. Therefore, if a computer was purchased specifically for yom tov, there would not be any issue of mashmia kol^[6].

IV. Melacha on Shabbat

The final determination is whether causing the monitor to show the video conference participants constitutes a prohibition of kosiev. While some poskim consider typing on a computer to be an act of kosiev, it is by no means the most obvious conclusion.

Unlike writing, typing on a computer does not form permanent letters. Once the power is disconnected, the battery drained or the monitor displays a new screen, the letters no longer exist. Moreover, pressing a key does not introduce new electrical current to the computer; it only modulates the current that is already present. Thus, assuming that the computer is already running before Shabbat, it would be difficult to maintain that typing entails either kosiev or a serious form of using electricity on Shabbat.

Using Zoom that was left on from before Shabbat started entails even less of a concern of writing on Shabbat, as the electrical current is not even being modulated. Furthermore, there is a much more fundamental point. That is, when Zoom is turned on before Shabbat, there is no masa melacha being done. The video captures whatever is in front of it, and the person is merely the subject in front of the lens, simply existing. Thus, it is not obvious that there would be any prohibition whatsoever while only existing.

V. Conclusion

There are three strictly halachik considerations when determining whether zoom can be used for the seder.

1) Hearing over electronic speaker: the sound produced is not considered halachik voice and the participants over zoom would have to read the Haggadah themselves

2) Producing sound on shabbas: the sound can be allowed if there is need for it

3) Kosiev and electricity on shabbas: since there is no maasa melacha being done it is not assur

Endnotes

1. The other analysis involves determine what is considered hearing and is relevant in the analysis of cochlear implants. ↑

2. The possible source for this exception is based on hilchot shofar where an echo of the original sound is not considered sound of a shofer because it was not the immediate result of the human action. ↑

3. In a large setting where it is difficult to hear the chazan, a simple solution would be to allow the use of a microphone to facilitate allowing all people to hear. According to the first position, it would seem like an act in futility as the participants are not hearing a human voice and not accomplishing anything. The second approach that considers electronic voice produced as a result of a human voice to be halachic sound will obviously allow the use of microphones for prayer.

   However, even according to the former position, there may be a reason to use a microphone in large audiences, assuming an important caveat. In Alexandria, the shul was too big for all the congregants to hear the chazan. To allow all participants to know what the chazan was up to and what to respond when, they would raise flags as signals for all to see. The same innovative resolution can be applied to the microphone. There should be no reason to distinguish between flags signaling people or sound produced over the microphone, letting people know what the chazan is saying. Nevertheless, there still would need to have ten people who actually hear the words as emitted from the mouth of the chazzan and not through an intermediary electric system. Therefore, the microphone should be kept at a distance from the chazzan that still allows for people to hear him over the speaker but at a far enough distance that the ten people standing near the chazzan hear the sound from his voice.

   Another interesting manifestation of this discussion is the possibility of doing seyiumim over the phone or like. While usually joining a seyium is halachically insignificant, on Erev Pesach firstborns need to participate in a seyium to be allowed to eat. This question involves a different analysis than the previous question. Here, there is no clear need to “hear” the seyium as there is an obligation being fulfilled, rather, there is only a need to participate in a seyium. To that end, it seems clear according to all the aforementioned positions that participation can be achieved by phone or Zoom. ↑

4. Significantly, the aruch hashulchan extends that ruling to include utensils that were left on before shabbas. However, Rav Shlomo Zalmen does not contend that the gezira of the gemara can be expanded to include things left on before shabbas, only those that are utilized on shabbas itself. ↑

5. This seemingly obvious conclusion is complicated by Rav Moshe Feinstein who in one location suggests that sound of speaker is halachik hearing and yet also assumes elsewhere that there is a problem of shema yitakin with using speakers. ↑

6. It could then be argued that it may be preferable for doctors to have phones specifically for shabbas for making phone calls (all other uses of a smartphone that do not involve producing a sound would not make a difference if it was a phone specific for shabbas). ↑