When I looked into things to do in SoCal with kids, a visit to La Jolla, San Diego, perched itself very high on my list. A wealthy part of San Diego, La Jolla seemed to have a lot to offer for a family day out : wonderful coastline, seal spotting opportunities and Dr Seuss connections all conjured to make me want to go and so one day in summer, we did.
This is how we spent our day in La Jolla with the kids and why I recommend to go visit.
How to visit La Jolla with kids – do you need the car?
La Jolla is a seaside community within the city of San Diego, at the Northern end of the city limit. It is a hilly, coastal area with wonderful views over the Pacific ocean.
The name la Jolla (pronunciation: La-hoy-a) is peculiar and indeed, of controversial origin.
Some say that it comes from the Spanish word to mean 'jewel', and that would refer to the beauty of its location. This would explain why many travel articles about this community talk about is as the jewel of Southern California.
However, this doesn't seem to be the case or at least, not as such, as the word 'jolla' happens not to exist in Spanish!
What does exist, however, is the word 'joya', which indeed does mean 'jewel', so it is possible that Spanish settlers called it la joya and the spelling got slowly corrupted into one with a double L.
Before the arrival of Spanish speakers, the name of the city seems to have been that of Kulaaxuuy: this is a native word meaning 'land of holes' and topographers believe may refer to the sea caves in the area.
Whatever the actual origin of the word may be, both versions pick up on elements of the truth. In terms of topography, the coastline here does have interesting sea caves and rock formations and in term of settlement, this area did see a strong Spanish influence.
To top it all, La Jolla truly is beautiful so whether the meaning of 'jewel' is true or made up, we believe it fits it really well!
We visited La Jolla on a day rip from Carlsbad and we reached it by car.
We found on street parking to be reasonably easy to find and free, even in the middle of summer: however, this type of parking is time limited, so make sure you are able to come back to the car swiftly should you choose this option.If you want more time, you may opt for one of the several parking lots available.
Depending on what you want to do, having the car in La Jolla can be good or a pain. For what we wanted to do, we quickly realized the car was not needed.
The village part of la Jolla and several of its beaches are easily accessible on foot.
Restaurants, shops, the so called children pool with the seals, the beach and The Lorax Tree are all beside each other and you can walk from one to the other.
If you want to venture farther afield such as to the Birch Aquarium you will need the car. The car is also the easiest way to reach this seaside community from pretty much anywhere in the area.
The first thing we did in La Jolla was looking for its famous seals and sea lions.
I had seen innumerable photos of these furry La Jolla inhabitants sunbathing on the beach but I had also read that they were not as common to spot as they used to be so did not prep the children for their presence, fearing a let down.
However, contrary to my expectations, the seals were there and in huge numbers!
We first spotted them from the promenade, just a couple catching the sun, and as we got closer, we saw more and more of them, some even with pups!
The famous La Jolla sea lions catch the sun on the sandy Southern California shores!
They were the cutest sight.
La Jolla promenade is higher than sea level and you can spot the seals from above, or you can follow the many tourists venturing on the beach to get up close and personal with them.
Getting close to them can be harmful to the seals and especially if they have pups you should not go near them but they are a wonderful sight even from a bit of a distance.
The ones we saw where catching the sun, swimming, playing on the sand and not bothered at all by tourists.
We managed to get some good photos of them and they stay as one of our most cherished moment of the holiday and one of your recommended things to do in San Diego with kids.
Our kids adored the seals and we ended up spending most of the day here.
The only think that brought us away was the call of hunger, that got us to venture and to test out the famous La Jolla food scene.
When we set off to look for a lunch spot in La Jolla, we quickly realized just how many options exist in this area of San Diego.
This neighborhood simply teems with restaurants and eateries: in the space of a few yards we saw grills promising amazing cuts of meat, a very tempting pancake house, Hawaiian inspired child friendly eateries and amazing food shops.
The limit here is your budget and the palate of your kids and in our case they both conjured to us ending up in Bubba's smokehouse BBQ.
This choice didn't make my non-carnivore husband very happy but filled myself and my burger loving kids with that red meat fix we so wish we didn't crave but do.
Our kids love Dr Seuss' books in general and the Lorax in particular so there was no doubt that we would go and seek out the Lorax Tree said to be in la Jolla and to have inspired the illustrations of this famous tale.
It turns out, finding the Lorax Tree in La jolla was super easy: it is right in the centre of the promenade and there is very little chance of you missing it if you have Dr Seuss eyes to see!
The tree lives in Scripps Park, near where Dr. Seuss lived and within view from his window and while it is a Monterey cypress rather that a truffula tree, it is hard not to see where the truffula inspiration came from.
The tree hasn't got a plaque or any particular sign for marking it but is easy to find and all locals will tell you how to reach if you asked – however, chances are yo won't need to. Considering how many people where taking photos it, it is not exactly a well kept secret!
Our kids thought it was fabulous and got to compare it with the Joshua trees, also Dr Seussian,that they had seen in the National Park.
Our day in La Jolla with the kids was spent wandering and soaking up the atmosphere of this lovely community. However, there are several children attractions and activities in La Jolla you can enjoy.
If visiting La Jolla between end of October and March, children can join local kids going tide pooling.
La Jolla tide pools are famous as they allow you catch a glimpse of great marine life and they are easy to reach from almost anywhere in town.
Here you can see sea crabs, sea stars, limpets, fish and much more. This is an easy and free outdoor pastime kids can enjoy over and over again and funnily enough some our kids are very familiar with, thanks to the tide pools back home in Ireland!
This is a family favorite at home and one activity we do seek out on tidal coastal locations.
For a much more comprehensive glance at marine life, you can bring the children to the Birch Aquarium.
The Birch aquarium is part of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. It hosts over 5000 fish in over 60 habitats and has several interactive installations and activities that teach kids about marine life and oceanographic research.
This is a wonderful place for a day out and also have amazing views over the ocean: a great plus!
Kids who prefer to be in the water rather than learning about it can also enjoy the beautiful La Jolla ocean hands on.
La Jolla has several beautiful beaches, but not all of them are suitable for kids or inexperienced swimmers as the tide and rift can get very strong here and cause accidents.
Among the ones we were recommended for families there are La Jolla shores, great for sunbathing and splashing in the water and La Jolla Cove, best for water exploration since it offers access to the marine reserve.
Despite the name, the famous La Jolla children's pool is now claimed by sea lions rather than kids: so don't be surprised if the children you see there are baby seals!
e loved our day in La Jolla with kids and highly encourage you to stop in this seaside community if in the area. Safe travels!


text:
<Record>
<Term>Ortho evra</Term>
<SemanticType>Pharmacologic Substance</SemanticType>
<SemanticType>Organic Chemical</SemanticType>
<PrimarySemanticType>Pharmacologic Substance</PrimarySemanticType>
<Synonym>Ethinyl estradiol;norelgestromin</Synonym>
<Synonym>Ethinyl estradiol-norelgestromin</Synonym>
<Source>FDA Registry</Source>
</Record>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Key Words: electrical appliances on Shabbat, refrigerator, radio, television and telephone on Shabbat, timer on Shabbat.
The topic of electricity in halacha is unique to our generation since there are no direct precedents in the Talmud or rishonim and the halachic discussion of this topic has been ongoing for less than 100 years. It is only since the technology developed and appliances became electrically powered that many of these questions arose... Over time many works were printed and it has become an established part of rabbinic literature. ("Electricity," Encyclopedia Talmudit 18:642).
The advances of technology have posed practical challenge to decisors throughout the ages. One of the hallmarks of Jewish law is its ability - and desire - to assimilate technological advances into the practices of observant Jews. The application of ancient and venerated principles of halacha to new situations has been, and remains, one of the essential tasks of modern decisors of Jewish law. In the last one hundred years, this task has become considerably more difficult due to the rapid and frequent changes in the state of technology.
This article is divided into five sections. The first discusses the basis for the prohibition of turning on or off incandescent lights on Shabbat. The second addresses the use of electricity where no light and heat is produced (e.g., turning on a fan). The third discusses the differences between Shabbat and Yom Tov for purposes of the rules developed in sections one and two. The fourth analyzes various specific appliances in light of the rules developed, and the fifth discusses various issues relating to the use of timers to control appliances on Shabbat and Yom Tov.
One of the earliest issues involving electricity found in halachic literature was the permissibility of turning on an incandescent light on Shabbat.3 The overwhelming majority of the decisors maintain (for reasons to be explained) that turning on an incandescent light on Shabbat violated a biblical prohibition.
One who heats a metal pot [literally, a boiler] may not pour cold water into it to heat it; however, one may pour water into the pot or a cup in order to temper it.
Rav Says this mishnah is only ruling [that it is permitted to pour water into a heated pot] when the water temperature is modified, but if the metal is hardened it is prohibited [to heat the metal]. Samuel says this is permitted even if hardening occurs. [The Talmud replied] if the primary purpose [of heating the metal] is to harden the pot, nobody permits it heating.
Rabbi Sheshet rules that the cooking [burning] of a wick [of metal], just like the cooking of spices is prohibited on Shabbat [because of the biblical prohibition to cook on Shabbat].
One who heats a metal bar in order to temper it in water has violated the biblical prohibition of lighting a flame.
Ravad immediately disagrees as to the nature of the biblical prohibition and rules that heating a metal bar until it glows is prohibited because of either cooking (as Rambam elsewhere appears to classify it (Shabbat 9:6)) or as ma'keh bepatish, completing a nearly finished process. Both authorities, however, agree that a biblical prohibition is violated when metal is heated until it glows. There is no biblical prohibition violated in generating light per se.
This third position has been categorically rejected by most decisors.7 In fact, in Teshuvot Doveiv Meisharim (1:87), Rabbi Weidenfeld states that the position of those who rule that turning on lights is only a rabbinic violation should not even be taken into consideration by decisors when rendering halachic decisions regarding matters of electricity. Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffman (Melamed Lehoil 1:49) states what has emerged as the consensus opinion: the verse (Exodus 35:3) "One may not create a fire on Shabbat in all your dwellings" describes the prohibition against creating fire of any sort. Current flowing through a filament and causing it to glow creates fire despite the absence of a "flame" and regardless of whether that which is on fire is consumed.8 Rambam's assertion (Shabbat 12:1) that heating a metal is prohibited because of burning only proves this rule, and was not intended to limit it.
Raising the intensity of a light produced by an already glowing incandescent bulb on Shabbat contains issues distinct from that of turning on the light, and in fact a number of modern authorities appear to label this as only a rabbinic violation. Assuming that the prohibition in turning on a light is cooking (bishul), as the Ravad and others maintain, it is possible that raising the heat and light output of the light is analogous to reheating an item which is already cooked. The glowing light is similar to the cooked food. If that is correct, then raising the light intensity is not a biblical prohibition just as reheating an already cooked food is not a biblical violation (Minchat Shlomo pp. 109-110). The Chazon Ish disagrees (Orach Chaim 50:9) and states that since the additional heating increases the light production, it is not analogous to reheating a cooked item, and a biblical prohibition is violated.
3. Turning on an appliance violates the prohibition of ma'keh bepatish (completing a product).
4. Completion of a circuit must kindle sparks and therefore is prohibited because it creates a flame.
5. The use of any electrical current leads to an increase in fuel consumption at the power station, which is prohibited.
6. Heating of a metal transistor or wire, even when no visible light is emitted, is prohibited because of cooking or burning.
7. The use of electricity without light or heat is actually permitted, but because observant Jews since the invention of electricity have maintained that it is prohibited to use electrical appliances on Shabbat, and rabbinic authorities approved of this stricture, it is prohibited to use such appliances - absent great need - because of tradition.
While it is beyond the scope of a survey article to convey the full force of the complete halachic dialogue among the various authorities, an effort has been made to present, along with each opinion, some of the Talmudic proofs and some of the questions raised in opposition to each reason.
The possibility that the use of electricity on Shabbat violates the prohibition of molid was first suggested by Rabbi Yitzchak Schmelkes (Beit Yitzchak 2:31). Rabbi Schmelkes states that just as the Sages forbade creating a new fragrant scent in one's clothes on Shabbat, molid reicha (Beitza 23a) - an action which Rashi explains was prohibited because "one who creates something new is almost as one who performs a biblically forbidden act" - so too they forbade creating anything new on Shabbat, including appliances made "new" through the use of electricity or the creation of a current flow. Thus, he states, creating a current flow (molid zerem) is rabbinically forbidden because in doing so one has created something new - a functioning appliance.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and many others22 disagree with Rabbi Schmelkes' thesis. Essentially these authorities state that Rabbi Schmelkes' theory must be wrong because any creative act which is routinely done and undone throughout the day cannot be included in the rabbinic prohibition of creating something new. Moreover, there are many examples of "new creations" which were not prohibited by the Sages. Merely because creating a new fragrance is prohibited does not imply that all new "creation" is prohibited on Shabbat. Rabbi Auerbach insists that only a limited number of actions were prohibited in the Talmud because of molid, and one may not extrapolate from these limited examples that creating anything else new (like electrical current) is rabbinically prohibited.
A proof to this can be found in a responsum of the Chacham Zvi (#92), which limits the prohibition of molid to the application of a fragrance to one's clothes. However, he permits one to apply fragrance to many things other than clothes. In addition, Rabbi Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo p. 74) provides numerous examples of new "creative actions" which the rabbis never forbade.
The second possible basis for prohibiting the use of electricity can be found first in the works of Rabbi Abraham Isaiah Karelitz, commonly referred to by the name of his magnum opus, Chazon Ish.23 He states that it is likely that completion of a live circuit constitutes a forbidden act of building (boneh) on Shabbat. He reasons that completing a circuit renders a previously useless wire into a functional wire, and this is analogous to competing a building or wall. In addition, completing a circuit is analogous to assembling an appliance composed of numerous parts - which halacha defines as building - and is thus prohibited on Shabbat.
Some authorities believe that causing an electrical appliance to work is a biblical violation of ma'keh bepatish28 (literally "the final blow of the hammer" but generally understood to mean the final act in finishing any product and making it useful29). These authorities cite as precedent those who prohibited winding a watch for this reason.30 Purely by analogy, these authorities argue that since an electrical appliance is useless before electricity is added to it, the introduction of electric current causes it to become a useful piece of equipment, and is therefore prohibited because of ma'keh bepatish.
A number of factors, however, indicate that this prohibition is inapplicable to the sparks created by turning mechanical switches on or off. First, these sparks are created unintentionally (davar she'eino mitkaven), and no prohibition exists when there is no intent to perform an action on Shabbat and that action might not occur.34 Second, since these sparks are so small that one cannot detect any heat when touching them, and typically they are not visible, it is possible that these sparks should not be considered fire.33 Additionally, the advent of solid state technology36 and sparkless (arcless) switches frequently makes this issue technologically moot. Thus, Rabbi Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo pp.86-87) states "practically (lehalacha) there isn't even a rabbinic prohibition in the unintentional creation of sparks."
Another possible problem is raised by the author of Chashmal Leor Halacha (2:6). He writes that completing a circuit and causing a current flow sometimes causes additional fuel to be consumed by the power station as a result of the increased need for electricity. Causing additional fuel to be consumed perhaps is to be considered in the category of burning which is forbidden on a biblical level. Thus, it might be prohibited to draw increased current on Shabbat.
Rabbi Auerbach (quoted in Shmirat Shabbat Kehilchata 1:23 n. 137) disagrees.37 First, one is only indirectly causing increased fuel consumption (grama). More significantly, greater fuel consumption is not inevitable or even likely when one turns on one appliance, because statistically it is likely that at that very moment, someone elsewhere has turned off an electrical appliance, thereby elimination the need for increased electric output. Finally, outside Israel the power plants are operated by gentiles (if they are not fully automated), and hence the prohibition would only be in directing a non-Jew to violate the Shabbat, which is only a rabbinic prohibition.
One other possible prohibition is raised by the Chazon Ish.38 He states that when the current passing through a wire raises the wire's temperature above the temperature at which a human hand pulls away because of the heat (yad soledet bo),39 it is considered to be an act of "cooking" (bishul) and thus prohibited. The Chazon Ish states that this "cooking" is prohibited even though the person who turns on the appliance is unaware that it is occurring and does not intend that there be any "cooking."
Additionally, in the last twenty years, solid state technology has become dominant, and fewer and fewer appliances have wires that are heated (vacuum tubes), thus making this argument factually obsolete.
In my opinion there is no prohibition [to use electricity] on Shabbat or Yom Tov... There is no prohibition of ma'keh bepatish or molid... (However, I [Rabbi Auerbach] am afraid that the masses will err and turn on incandescent lights on Shabbat, and thus I do not permit electricity absent great need...) ... This matter requires further analysis.
* * * * However, the key point in my opinion is that there is no prohibition to use electricity on Shabbat unless the electricity causes a prohibited act like cooking or starting a flame.
Rabbi Auerbach additionally states that since the tradition forbids the use of electricity, and this tradition received near unanimous approval from rabbinic authorities in the normal course of events observant Jews should accept this tradition (even though he feels it is based on incorrect premises) and operate under the presumption that the use of electricity without light or heat is a violation, of rabbinic origin, based on molid.41 Only in the case of urgent need does he allow one to rely on his opinion that electricity is permitted where no heat or light is generated.
So, too, when one is forced to choose between prohibited actions, it is appropriate to realize that the consensus is that electricity without light and heat is a rabbinic and not a biblical violation. For example, if one has to bring a person to the hospital on Shabbat, it is unquestionably preferable to call a taxi (for a gentile driver) by telephone, which most consider only a rabbinic violation (see section IV:b), than to drive there oneself (which is unquestionably a biblical violation), if the few minutes differential in time are irrelevant.
1. Just as turning on a circuit is prohibited because it is a form of building (boneh), turning off a circuit is prohibited because of the biblical prohibition to destroy (soter). (Chazon Ish, Reason B Above).
2. Turning off a circuit, just like turning on a circuit, causes sparks to kindle which is prohibited because of mavir (lighting a flame). (Sparks, Reason D Above).
3. Removal of heat from a currently hot metal filament is rabbinically prohibited either because of extinguishing or because of a special prohibition of taking a cooking item off the stove. (Reason F above).
The reason advanced to prohibit the use of electricity on Shabbat when no light or heat is generated are quite diverse. They range from the biblical prohibition of building to the rabbinic prohibition to create something new (molid) or to tradition without any precise basis in the laws of Shabbat. Whatever the basis, accepted practice generally prohibits the use of electricity on Shabbat even when no light or heat is generated.
1. Turning on a light is only indirectly causing the light to go on. This type of indirect action (grama), while generally prohibited on Shabbat, is permitted for rabbinically prohibited actions on Yom Tov.
Since there are those who permit the lighting of electric lights on Yom Tov, one should not strongly rebuke people who turn on lights on Yom Tov - specifically since many congregations in the Diaspora have this tradition with the approbation of their rabbis. Nonetheless, it is proper to explain to such people in a mild voice that most rabbinic authorities are strict about this matter, and the law follows the majority.
It also appears that any authority who permits turning on lights on Yom Tov (except perhaps for those who do so based on the indirect causation analysis, see note 55) must agree with the position of Rabbi Auerbach that there is no halachic obstacle to using electricity when no light and heat are produced. Authorities who permit turning on lights on Yom Tov must have rejected the reasoning of those who forbid activating a circuit based on the prohibition of building (boneh), finishing a product (ma'keh bepatish), creating a new electrical flow based on molid (creating something new), or creating sparks, as there is no distinction between Shabbat and Yom Tov for these prohibitions. This analysis would add a large number of eminent decisors to the list of those who agree with Rabbi Auerbach that electricity used solely as a form of mechanical energy is theoretically permitted on Shabbat (and actually permitted in cases of great need).
Two distinct approaches have been taken to the use of electricity on Yom Tov. Most authorities maintain, and it is the accepted practice of observant Jews, to treat Yom Tov like Shabbat, and not to turn on lights or use electrical appliances on Yom Tov. A minority opinion, and the practice of some observant Jews, allows turning on lights (and perhaps other appliances also) on Yom Tov. All agree that it is prohibited to turn lights off on Yom Tov.
1. Melacha she'einah tzricha legufah (an action not needed for its result). This occurs when one does a prohibited action on Shabbat not intending to commit the action prohibited by halacha. For example, pouring water on a field to dispose of the water, rather than to irrigate the field, is a melacha she'eina tzericha legufah. This is normally a rabbinic violation.
2. Pesik resha (undesired act). This occurs when a permitted act will inevitably and directly lead to a prohibited act. As an example, the Talmud stated that if one cuts off the head of a chicken on Shabbat to play with the head, even though one does not care if the chicken lives or dies, a biblical violation has occurred since the action will inevitably lead to killing an animal (a biblical prohibition on Shabbat).
3. Davar she'eino mitkaven (unintended act). This is identical to a pesik resha except that the second act might not occur, and is thus permitted.
4. Pesik resha delo nichah lei (undesired act with no benefit). This is a pesik resha where the second act, even though it must occur, will provide no benefit to the person causing it. Most authorities maintain this is a rabbinic violation; some maintain it is permitted.
The prohibition associated with intentionally starting the motor in the refrigerator must be discussed first. It is possible that no prohibition exists at all since, as explained above, Rabbi Auerbach asserts that no prohibition is violated when initiating an electric current if there is no heating element. Thus, Rabbi Auerbach contends that no Shabbat violation occurs when one causes a motor to run which in turn causes a gas to vaporize and thereby cools down the refrigerator; Minchat Shlomo, p. 84.
Moreover, Rabbi Auerbach writes that even the Chazon Ish, who delivered that completion of an electric circuit constitutes a forbidden act of building (boneh), would concede that no violation occurs when one causes the motor to start prematurely by opening the door. Rabbi Auerbach maintains that the Chazon Ish limits the biblical prohibition of building to placing the plug in the socket. However, causing the motor to start earlier cannot be considered "building" for two reasons. First, an act cannot be defined as building if that act will occur later naturally. Turning on an appliance could only be defined as building because human intervention is required to stop this action. However, the refrigerator's motor will go off automatically shortly after it has begun to work. Second, the reasoning of the Chazon Ish is based on bringing the appliance "from death to life."60 However, by allowing hot air to enter, one has not caused any change in the operation of the refrigerator. The refrigerator is operational before opening the door; once the temperature reaches a certain degree, the motor will start. Hence, Rabbi Auerbach states that even the Chazon Ish would concede that causing the motor to start early cannot be considered "building." Accordingly, all agree that no biblical prohibition is violated by causing the motor to run prematurely.
Moreover, rabbi Auerbach argues by way of reductio ad absurdum, if one rules stringently and prohibits opening the refrigerator door lest it cause the motor to run prematurely, then it should also be forbidden to open the windows or curtains, or bring hot foods in close proximity to the refrigerator. These actions, he points out, also cause the motor to run earlier than it would have otherwise.
Rabbi Yaakov Breisch65 objects to this reasoning and rules that indirectly causing prohibited actions cannot be permitted on a regular basis. Rabbi Auerbach counters that only when one intends the resultant action to occur is it prohibited if performed regularly.
Common practice among observant Jews in America appears to accept those authorities who allow the opening of the refrigerator door even if the motor is not running.
Five different aspects of using the telephone are relevant from a halachic perspective: lifting the receiver, dialing, talking, holding the receiver, and returning the receiver to its place.
The next area of discussion concerns the prohibitions related to dialing. Again, circuits are completed, bringing about a biblical prohibition according to the Chazon Ish, a rabbinic prohibition according to Rabbi Shmelkes, and possibly no prohibition according to Rabbi Auerbach. Rabbi Benzion Uziel (Mishpatei Uziel 1:13) writes that when dialing, one has violated the biblical prohibition of "the final blow" (ma'keh bepatish) by turning the telephone into a functional object. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 1:20) disagrees because the phone is a fully functional object prior to the dialing. Dialing a number is considered to be merely using the phone, not fixing it.
Talking on the telephone causes an increase in the current used. Whether increasing current usage is prohibited on Shabbat is a major halachic issue.73 Rabbi Auerbach maintains that there are no halachic prohibitions associated with causing an increase or decrease in current, in appliances without a heating element or glowing filament.
Those who believe that turning on an appliance violated the prohibition of "the final blow" (ma'keh bepatish), would limit this assertion to turning on the appliance and not increasing current. After the appliance has been turned on, it has been rendered into a usable item and no further prohibition of "the final blow" is violated when increasing current. Finally, even if one views the creation of sparks as a halachic problem (see section II:F above), no such problem exists when increasing current because an increase in current does not lead to increased creation of sparks.
Rabbi Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss and Rabbi Binyamin Yehoshua Silber75 disagree and prohibit increasing current for two reasons. First, it is far from universally accepted that one may increase the intensity of a fragrance already present in a garment (see n. 74). Second, increasing current may not be analogous to increasing the intensity of a scent. One can argue that in many instances the increased current is what enables a desired activity to take place and thus, is more analogous to adding on an entirely different additional scent to a garment,76 which all agree is prohibited.
Turning on radios or televisions involves completion of a circuit; current flow, as shown above involves a biblical prohibition according to the Chazon Ish, and a rabbinic prohibition according to Rabbi Schmelkes . Since newer radios and televisions do not contain heating elements or glowing filaments, Rabbi Auerbach raises theoretical possibility that turning on the radio per se does not involve any prohibition, as he does not accept either the opinion of the Chazon Ish or Rabbi Schmelkes as correct. However, it is well established that by turning on a radio, one violates the rabbinic prohibition of "causing a noise to be heard with an instrument designed for this purpose" (hashma'at kol al yedei keli hameyuchad lekach). Thus, even Rabbi Auerbach rules that a rabbinic prohibition is present when one turns on a radio.
Whether one may raise the volume on Shabbat depends upon whether one is permitted to increase current flow on Shabbat.83 However, whether moving the dial from one station to another constitutes a violation of the rabbinic prohibition of "making a noise be heard" is disputed. Rabbi Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 3:16:12:5) believes that a violation takes place because no coherent sounds are heard in between stations. By tuning in the desired station, one has caused noise to be heard which would not have been heard previously. Rabbi Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo p. 67) disagrees because the broadcasters are the ones who create the sound and only they violate the prohibition of "creating a noise that is heard."
Whenever it is permissible to separate (or wear) clothes on Shabbat if that action will generate static electricity is a topic that a number of decisors have addressed. If one adopts Rabbi Auerbach's aforementioned lenient ruling regarding the creation of sparks during use of a circuit, one might be lenient in this regard as well. Indeed, Rabbi Auerbach is cited (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 15:72) as maintaining that the unintentional creation of static electricity from clothes does not pose a halachic problem.
Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 7:10) rules leniently in this regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor. Therefore, he rules that the unintentional creation of static electricity does not pose a halachic problem.84 At the conclusion of his responsum, Rabbi Waldenberg adds another consideration to be lenient in this regard - that one does not intend to create the static electricity.
The use of specific appliances is enveloped in the controversy of electricity generally. Many authorities permit opening refrigerator doors on Shabbat whether the motor is on or off. Some permit this only when the motor is on. While most authorities agree that the use of telephones is prohibited on Shabbat, Rabbi Auerbach asserts that it is possible that telephones are not prohibited. While all agree that neither radios nor televisions can be used on Shabbat, there is dispute over the nature of the prohibition. The unintentional generation of static electricity is permitted.
The use of timers on Shabbat and Yom Tov involves two distinct halachic issues, one of which has been settled and one of which has not. The first is whether it is permitted to set a timer on Friday so that a prohibited action will take place on Shabbat. The second is whether it is permitted to adjust that timer on Shabbat in order to change the time when the action will occur.
It is permitted to start an action [melacha] on Friday even though that action is completely on Shabbat, since it is only forbidden to start work on Shabbat. However, when the work is done by itself on Shabbat, it is permitted to benefit from that work.
More relevantly, the Talmud (Shabbat 18a) quotes in the name of Rava that it is prohibited to add wheat on Friday to a water mill that runs automatically on Shabbat, since the mill produces a large amount of noise and this noise denigrates Shabbat (zeluta deShabbat).86 Furthermore, people will say that the owner of the mill is running it on Shabbat (Ramo, Orach Chaim 252:5). Rav Yosef is quoted in the Talmud as disagreeing with Rava and permitting any action done prior to Shabbat even if it creates large amount of noise.
There are those authorities who prohibit placing wheat in the mill on Friday. We [Ashkenazic Jewry] should worry about the prohibition of creating sound. This is the proper approach ab initio [lechatchila]. In cases of financial loss, it is permitted to be lenient.
Many of the achronim permit one to set a Shabbat clock on Friday - and this is the common practice - even those who prohibit creating a sound permit the use of timers... since all know that these timers are set before Shabbat.
Before discussing whether a substantive prohibition exists to adjust a timer on Shabbat and Yom Tov, it is necessary to address a threshold question: are timers muktza? If timers are muktza, it is obviously prohibited to adjust them.
In a brief and cryptic responsum, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein asserts, without explanation, that one may not adjust a timer during Shabbat and Yom Tov because the timer is muktza.96 Other decisors have offered reasons for this assertion. Rabbi Benjamin Silber states97 that a timer is muktza "due to concern for monetary loss" (muktza machmat chesaron kis).
1. May one adjust the timer so that the appliance will start earlier than originally intended, (e.g., move the dial so that a light scheduled to go on at midday goes on at 11 a.m)?
[Deuteronomy 12:4] states "One may not do any work;" however, work done directly is prohibited, but work done indirectly is permitted.
The second position, that of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and others, states that the critical factor is whether the additional force needed to finish the action is present at the time of human activity. Winnowing in the wind is prohibited only when the wind is blowing at the time the wheat is thrown into the wind; the barrel case is permitted since one is placing the barrels away from the fire. Placing the barrels actually in the fire would be prohibited.103 Since, when adjusting a timer the additional force needed to finish the action, namely the rotation of the dial, is present at the time of human activity, all adjustments that hasten an action are prohibited. Thus, Rabbi Soloveitchik rules that under no circumstances may one adjust the timer so that an appliance will begin to operate earlier than expected.
A third view asserts that the critical factor is whether the indirect process used is the normal process. If the indirect process is the normal one, it is prohibited on Shabbat. Otherwise it is permitted. The barrel case is permitted only because it is not the normal manner to extinguish fire through a time delay. Winnowing, however, is frequently done through wind power.104 According to this approach, adjusting a timer is prohibited since it was designed to be used in this manner; however, placing ice cubes (or hot water) on a thermostat to increase the flow of heat (or cold air), would be permitted since that is an indirect and unusual manner of making the adjustment.
3. May one adjust the timer so that the electric current is extinguished earlier than expected? (E.g., a light on a timer is set to go off at midday and one wants to move the dial so as to turn the light off at 10 a.m.).
Adjusting a timer to extinguish an appliance prematurely involves the same considerations as adjusting the timer to extend the current flow. According to Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's definition of indirect causation, such an action is forbidden. If one accepts time delay as the critical factor in determining whether an action is a result of direct or indirect action, then in case of need or mitzvah one may adjust the timer to extinguish current flow earlier than expected; Yabia Omer 3:18.
One distinction, though, does exist between causing current to flow or be terminated. When the current flow turns on a light, a biblical violation occurs, whereas terminating a current flow involves at most a rabbinic violation (see sections I and II). Rabbi Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo p. 110) states that since the halacha is unclear as to which definition of indirect causation is correct, one should avoid manipulating a timer to hasten an action which, if prohibited, would be a biblical violation. He does however, permit the adjusting of timers where only rabbinic prohibitions are present.
4. May one adjust the timer so that the electric current is extinguished later than expected? (E.g., a light is set to go off at midday and one wishes to move the dial so as to delay the turning off until 2 p.m.).
While initially a subject of some controversy, it has now become accepted that one may use a timer set on Friday to control all appliances. The issue of adjusting timers on Shabbat has yet to be settled. Some authorities prohibit any adjustment of a timer on the grounds that it is muktza. Even if timers are not considered to be muktza, some authorities prohibit adjusting a timer to start or terminate current flow earlier than expected. Other authorities, accepting a different understanding of causation, permit this. Adjusting a timer to delay the onset of current flow appears not to violate any Shabbat prohibition other than muktza according to most authorities.
The use of electricity on Shabbat and Yom Tov is a relatively new, and exceedingly complex, area of halacha. The variety of positions taken by the decisors is broad, and these differences are extremely relevant to the conduct of observant Jews. It is the near unanimous opinion that the use of incandescent lights on Shabbat is biblically prohibited. Beyond that, there is little agreement. Some authorities maintain that any time a circuit is opened or closed a biblical violation occurs. Other authorities insist that the use of electricity absent lights is only a rabbinic prohibition. Still other authorities accept that in theory the use of electricity without the production of light or heat is permitted - although even those authorities admit that such conduct is prohibited, absent great need, because of tradition.
The variety of grounds prohibiting the use of electricity is reflected in discussion of specific appliances. Many authorities permit opening a refrigerator door on Shabbat even if the motor is off; some do not. While all concede that the radio and television cannot be used on Shabbat and Yom Tov, the nature of the prohibition is in dispute. So, too, all but Rabbi Auerbach concede that a telephone cannot be used on Shabbat (even he prohibits it absent great need) - however there is no consensus as to the source of the prohibition. The use of timers is equally in dispute. While nearly all concede that timers may be set on Friday to work on Shabbat, adjusting such timers on Shabbat and Yom Tov is still in dispute.
2. A number of works survey this topic thoroughly in Hebrew, and should be referred to for further analysis of the many issues discussed. See, Encyclopedia Talmudit, "Electricity" 18:155-190 (and appendix I (pp. 641-781)); Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Minchat Shlomo ch. 9-13; Rabbi Neuwirth, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata, ch. 13; Chashmal Behalacha v.2 (this work is an annotated bibliography); and Chashmal Leor Halacha.
3. An incandescent light generates light by causing electrical current to flow through a metal filament. The resistance to current flow generates light and heat.
4. See Beit Yitzchak, Yoreh Deah 1:120; Achiezer 3:60; Melamed LeHoil Orach Chaim 49; Tzitz Eliezer 3:17; Pri Yitzchak 62; Brit Olam, Mechabe U'mavir 1:98; Chelkat Yaakov 1:52 (see also the introduction to this work by Rabbi I.Z. Meltzer where Rabbi Meltzer agrees with this assertions); Yesodei Yeshurun 5:147.
5. Chazon Ish Orach Chaim 50:9; Yesodei Yeshurun 5:127 (some say); Shevet Levi 1:47 (alternative possibility).
6. Maharsham 2:246; Chasdei Avot pp. 43-75; Yam Gadol, Orach Chaim 26 (in the name of some); Levush Mordechai Orach Chaim pp. 47-51. Rabbi Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo pp. 103-105) addresses this issue at great length and appears to demonstrate that these authorities are in error. He also states that even Ravad (who maintain that heating a metal constitutes cooking) would admit that causing a filament or heating element to glow is an act of burning (mavir).
7. See the authorities cited in notes 4 and 5.
8. One authority maintains that the biblical prohibition of creating a flame is always inapplicable to lighting an incandescent bulb because the prohibition only applies where the substance which is burning is consumed as per Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Orach Chaim 495:2.
9. Rabbi Auerbach appears to argue with this also. He maintains that increasing current flow to a light is not similar to adding fuel; see Minchat Shlomo pp. 109-110. Logic appears to disagree with this.
10. See e.g. Kuntres Gorem HaMalot 185; Maharsham 2:146; Minchat Shlomo pp.85-88; Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah 13:1. For reasons unclear to these authors, two authorities have taken a contrary position and ruled that a biblical violation occurs; see Machaze Avraham, Orach Chaim 41 and Beit Yitzchak, Yoreh Deah 2:31:8.
11. See e.g., Chayei Adam, Shabbat 11:1.
12. See Chayei Adam, Shabbat 45:1 and Tosafot "Deculei Alma" Shabbat 43b.
13. Tosafot (id.) states that this is a more serous rabbinic prohibition than the standard rabbinic prohibition on Shabbat.
15. Fluorescent lights generate light by exciting a gas and thereby causing light to be emitted; virtually no heat is generated. There was a time when fluorescent lights were considered halachically identical to incandescent lights because of the "starter" used in older model fluorescent lights. The starter produced a small spark which started the fluorescent light. Modern fluorescent lights are lacking this starter and thus are not considered to be identical to incandescent lights; see Encyclopedia Talmudit "Electricity" 18:715.
16. Neon lights, like florescent lights, generate light by electrically exciting gasses; no flame is produced. So too, LE and LC displays have no filament. In fact, LCDs do not illuminate at all. Instead, when subjected to an electric potential, LCDs darken and become visible. Halogen lights appear to be identical to incandescent lights as a hot metal filament is the source of the light produced.
17. For a complete analysis of these issues, see Rabbi Y. Rosen, "Ma'alit Automatit BeShabbat," Techumin 5:75 (and particularly pp. 94-96) (5744).
It is possible that extinguishing a fluorescent or neon bulb is prohibited because of marit eyin or chashad, because the casual observer might think that either incandescent lights may be extinguished or that the person who is doing the action is sinning; see Chashmal Leor Halacha 3:57. This would depend on whether the light produced by these systems appears similar to that produced by an incandescent light. Frequently it does not.
18. This section deals only with the prohibition of lights qua lights. Obviously, many of the issues addressed in part II are also relevant to this section as well. For example, if one were to conclude that turning a circuit on or off of is biblically prohibited in all cases because of "building," it would not matter practically whether extinguishing a light violates the prohibition of mechabe (extinguishing); see e.g., Rabbi J. David Bleich, "Microwave Ovens on Shabbat," 25:2 Tradition 68 (1990).
19. One other reason was occasionally advanced by rabbinic authorities when electricity first became common. A number of authorities were of the opinion that the electrons in the wires were a form of a flame and that extending that flame was prohibited on Shabbat. See Even Yekara 2:168; Beit Vaad Lechachamim 1:1 (in the name of the Rabbi Y. M. Epstein). For a complete list of these authorities, see Yabia Omer, Orach Chaim 1:19; 2:26. See section III for a further discussion on this issue.
20. For a discussion of the issue of completing a circuit when no current flow occurs see Minchat Shlomo pp. 91-95 and Tzitz Eliezer 6:5.
21. This article will not evaluate the correctness of the stricture contained in the final reason (that electricity should not be used because tradition prohibits it use, albeit incorrectly) as this reason involves considerations of halacha far beyond the scope of this article, and involves fundamental questions of the relationship between minhag, halacha and common practice; see generally Rabbi Herschel Schachter, "Is Canned Tuna Kosher?" Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 15:7, pp.8-9 (1988).
22. Minchat Shlomo pp. 71-74; Tzitz Eliezer 1:20:10, and the authorities cited therein; Tzalach Hachadash, Kuntres Acharon 1.
23. Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 50:9; Meorot Natan 6:7; Levush Mordechai 3:25. See also the letters written by Chazon Ish to Rabbi Auerbach (published in Minchat Shlomo pp. 92-94) clarifying his position.
24. Rabbi Auerbach points out that all the outstanding authorities who have discussed the issue of electricity prior to the Chazon Ish never even alluded to the possibility that the completion of a circuit is an act of building; see section III. In addition he states that there is no prohibition in transforming a dead or useless object into a live or useful object on Shabbat.
25. Rabbi Moshe D. Tendler (in a lecture at Yeshiva University) has asserted that this argument appears to have convinced Rabbi Moshe Feinstein to reject the opinion of the Chazon Ish. Rabbi Feinstein's writings provide no precise definition of the prohibition one violates when using electricity, although he does not appear to have accepted the Chazon Ish's opinion. See, e.g., Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 3:42; 1:50; 4:84; and 4:85.
26. In footnote 122, 123 and 133 to 139, the Encyclopedia Talmudit collects the numerous authorities who reject the Chazon Ish's approach.
28. Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 50:9; Mishpatei Uziel 1:13; Tzitz Eliezer 6:6; Edut Liyisarel (Rabbi Y. E. Henkin) p. 121. (Rabbi Henkin states that perhaps only a rabbinic prohibition is involved. This prohibition, metaken mana, is a subprohibition of ma'keh bepatish).
29. See Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat 23:4.
30. See Mishnah Berurah 338:15; Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 50:9. For a summary of the opinions on this topic see Yechave Da'at 2:48.
31. See Encyclopedia Talmudit "Electricity" 18:166 (see text accompanying note 26).
32. Running a motor powered by direct current (as opposed to alternating current) also must generate sparks.
33. Beitza 33a; Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 50:9; Melamed Lehoil 1:49; Chelkat Yaakov 1:55; Minchat Yitzchak 3:38. Some authorities believe that the creation of such sparks involves a biblical violation of the creation of fire (mavir). The Chazon Ish, however, asserts that it is merely a rabbinic prohibition of extracting fire from wood and stones.
36. Prior to the advent of solid state technology, information (e.g. radio waves or the like) was transmitted by means of a filament enclosed in a vacuum tube. This process must cause a filament to glow, which is a biblical prohibition on Shabbat. Solid state technology (e.g. transistors or microchips) uses metal (or glowing filament or any other source light and heat.
37. For a similar view, see Aseh Lecha Rav 5:94.
38. Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 50:9. Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman raises this as a possibility as well; see Melamed Lehoil, Orach Chaim 49.
39. A temperature between 110 and 170 degrees Fahrenheit. For a complete discussion of yad soledet bo for the purposes of Shabbat see Rabbi S. Eider, Halachos of Shabbos 4:242-243.
40. Of course, if the filament were to grow sufficiently hot that the metal visibly glowed, all would concede that to be prohibited for the reasons explained in Part I.
41. The analysis of Rabbi Shmelkes (Beit Yitzchak), that electricity is rabbinically prohibited because of molid (creating something new), seems to be the approach accepted by the largest number of authorities see Encyclopedia Talmudit "Electricity" 18:163-4 and notes 98-114.
42. It is a generally accepted rule within halacha that certain types of rabbinic law can be violated if done in an unusual way (kelachar yad) and great loss would result absent such violations. See Meiri, Shabbat 144b; Ran, (id.); Ramban, Shabbat 130b; Rashaba, (id.); Rashi, Pesachim 66b; Chazon Ish, Shabbat 56:4.
43. Rabbi Auerbach states that even if the Chazon Ish was correct that turning on an appliance violates the prohibition to build, turning off such an appliance need not necessarily violate the prohibition to destroy; see Minchat Shlomo pp. 101-102.
The other three reasons advanced to prohibit the use of electrical appliances - molid, ma'keh bepatish, and increasing fuel burned - have no corresponding prohibition related to turning off, and standing alone would not prohibit turning off appliances.
44. For example, when the alarm in a solid state radio accidentally goes off on Shabbat, the tradition in accordance with the Chazon Ish's approach would prohibit one from turning off the alarm because of soter. On the other hand, it would appear to us permissible to lower the volume of the alarm in an unusual way (kelachar yad) since none of the reasons discussed prohibiting electricity are applicable (no circuit is opened or closed and no appliance is turned on or off) and oneg Shabbat is otherwise greatly curtailed.
45. See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 502:1-3.
46. Achiezer 3:60; Chashmal Leor Halacha 3:11, Minchat Shlomo p. 69. For a complete list of authorities who agree with this ruling, see Encyclopedia Talmudit, "Electricity" 18:177 n. 250.
47. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 502:1 and commentaries ad locum (specifically see Mishnah Berurah and Biur Halacha "Ain motzim").
48. See e.g., Yabia Omer, Orach Chaim 1:19; 2:26. This is the unanimous opinion of the authorities and is not in dispute.
49. Letter from Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (the Aruch Hashulchan) published in Kovetz Vaad Chachamim, :1 (Shevat 5663) Even Yekara 3:168; Ohr Chadash p. 64; Rabbi Tzvi Pesach Frank, Kol Torah, (5694); Mishpetei Uziel, Orach Chaim, 19; Hilchot Rabata LeShabbata 1:7; for a complete list of authorities who agree with this ruling, see Chashmal Behalacha 2:5.
50. Reasons one and two are essentially unrelated to our topic, as they address the question from the perspective of the laws of Yom Tov, and not with any particular insight into the nature of electricity according to halacha. According to these opinions, indirect lighting of a flame is permitted on Yom Tov while prohibited on Shabbat.
51. This final reason has been generally rejected (see Encyclopedia Talmudit "Electricity" 18:179) as it is based on an erroneous understanding of the physical properties of electricity.
53. See note 46; Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:115; Otzar Chaim 3:44; Eretz Benymin (Pri Sadeh) 4:6; Chazon Nachum, Orach Chaim 1:30; Chelkat Yaakov 1:51; Yaskil Avdi 2:10; 4:27:3; Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah 13:2.
It would seem logical, however, that either increasing the light intensity or dimming a light on Yom Tov (without turning off or completing a circuit) is permissible so long as it is needed for Yom Tov (letzorech ochal nefesh). This is analogous to adding fuel to a pre-existing flame on Yom Tov, which is permitted.
54. Those who prohibit electricity due to increased fuel consumption at the power station on Shabbat would permit this on Yom Tov, as increasing fuel consumption is generally permitted on Yom Tov.
55. It is possible that this is not quite correct. If one accepts that on Yom Tov turning on a light is permitted because one is only indirectly causing the light to turn on (grama, reason one discussed above), one could then conclude that indirect building (gram, boneh) is permitted on Yom Tov, but prohibited on Shabbat. So, too, indirect creation (gram, molid) could be permitted on Yom Tov, and prohibited on Shabbat. This argument appears incorrect to these authors, as that would label all uses of electricity on Shabbat to be only rabbinically prohibited since all indirect (i.e., through grama) actions are only rabbinic violations even on Shabbat (a position which has attracted, to our knowledge, no support in the rabbinic literature).
56. Opening the door when the motor is already running is permissible because all that is done then is causing the motor to stay on for a longer period of time; see also section V.
57. See Har Zvi 1:151; Mishnat Rabbi Aharon, 1:4; Minchat Yitzchak 3:24; and Chelkat Yaakov, 1:54. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Yabia Omer 1:21 and Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, Edut Leyisrael p. 152, recommend that one be stringent in this regard, although they both accept that it is permissible to open a refrigerator even when the motor is off.
58. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's argument can be found in his Minchat Shlomo pp. 77-91. Others who are lenient include Rabbi Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer 8:12 and 12:92, Rabbi Uziel, Piskei Uziel no. 15. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein reports that Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik subscribes to the lenient position in this regard.
59. Almost all authorities accept that it is forbidden to open a refrigerator when the light inside will go on. Notwithstanding one's lack of intent to turn on the light when opening the refrigerator, this action is forbidden, since the light will inevitably go on (pesik resha).
However, rabbi S.Z. Rieger (the Dayan of Brisk) rules leniently in this regard (Hapardes 1934, volume three). His lenient ruling is based on two assumptions. First, he states that when the forbidden act has no benefit to the one who performs it, and it is only incidental (psik resha d'lo nicha leh), no prohibition exists. Rabbi Rieger assumes that the lenient ruling of the Aruch (see Aruch defining the word "sever") is accepted. Second, Rabbi Rieger states that the light in the refrigerator provides no benefit to the one opening the door.
His first assumption is disputed by most authorities (see Yabia Omer 1:21,5; Minchat Shlomo p. 87). The consensus appears not to accept the Aruch's ruling as normative. The second assertion appears to be entirely incorrect. The light serves as a convenience to locate items in the refrigerator and cannot be described as having no benefit to one who opens the door.
Most authorities, however, maintain that it is acceptable to ask a Gentile to open the door of the refrigerator even if the light will go on: see Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 2:68; and Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah pp. 100-101. So too, it would appear to these authors that one could allow a fellow Jew to open the door when he does not know the light will go on, as that is only in the category of mitasek (unknowing) and thus permitted; see e.g., Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Shiurim Lezeicher Avi Mori, p.30 n. 58; but see Teshuvot R. Akiva Eiger #9.
60. See letter of the Chazon Ish printed in Minchat Shlomo p. 93.
61. The sparks caused by the running of the motor do not constitute a halachic problem according to Rabbi Auerbach (see section II:F above). However, Rabbi Yaakov Breisch, who rules stringently in this matter, believes that the generation of these sparks does constitute a halachic problem. (see Chelkat Yaakov 1:54.).
62. Rabbi Auerbach writes at length why this is considered to be an indirect action; Minchat Shlomo pp. 90-91.
63. See Ramo, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 334:22 and Biur Halacha "degram kibui mutar."
64. The use of electric card keys to open hotel rooms on Shabbat or Yom Tov is more problematic, as none of these otherwise permissive factors are present. Using such a card closes a circuit which, according to the Chazon Ish, is a biblical violation of either building (boneh) or finishing an appliance (ma'keh bepatish). Rabbi Auerbach, for reasons explained above, states that since this "building" or completing of an appliance (the lock) is transient, no violation occurs even according to the Chazon Ish. Those who base the prohibition to use electricity during Shabbat on molid (creating) would rule that a rabbinic violation is present. Since absent great need one should, even according to Rabbi Auerbach, function as if creating electricity is a rabbinic violation, it is prohibited to use such a card on Shabbat or Yom Tov. It is, however, permitted to ask a Gentile to open one's hotel room if no other options are available. So, too, many authorities would permit one, in a case of need, to use the card in an unusual way (kelachar yad) to open the door. Cards which are mechanical, and not electric, may be used on Shabbat and Yom Tov.
65. Chelkat Yaakov 1:54, based on the comments of Rabbeinu Chananel Shabbat 120b s.v. "Amar Rav Yehuda."
66. The Sages prohibited making a loud noise on Shabbat to prevent one from violating the biblical prohibition of fixing an instrument or utensil. The rishonim debate whether the Sages limited their prohibition to making a noise with musical instrument or whether it applies even to making a noise with objects such as a door knocker. The Ramo adopts the stricter position; see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 338:1. In addition, see Biur Halacha s.v.hoil vehakeli meyuchad lekach.
67. They discuss whether causing the phone to ring and speaking on the telephone are a violation of "making a noise." See Minchat Shlomo pp. 75-76; Achiezer 4:6, Beit Yitzchak 2:31; Tzitz Eliezer 1:20:10 and Yabia Omer 1:20.
68. Another possible problem associated with lifting the receiver is that it might cause a wire to be heated, which constitutes a biblical prohibition. However, as Rabbi Shmuel David (Shealot Uteshuvot Meirosh Tzurim p. 503) writes, one need not be concerned with this since in most cases when the telephone is used, no filaments are heated. Since lighting this filament is not intended davar she'eino mitkaven) and is not an inevitable result of lifting the phone, it is permitted. It may, however, be a safek psik resha leshe'avar. When one is not sure that a prohibited action will occur in the future, it is permitted to perform the act despite the uncertainty. However, if a prohibited action may occur as a result of already existing circumstances, some authorities prohibit this action; see Rabbi Akiva Eiger's comments to Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 87 "yesh omrim deasur lachtot haesh" and Taz, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 316:3. In our case, the question as to whether the filament will be heated depends on circumstances which exist prior to lifting the phone (namely, the distance between the phone and the phone center and the degree of electrical resistance). The consensus of rabbinical opinion appears to be lenient in this matter. See generally, Melamed Lehoil 3:102; Biur Halacha 316 "velachen yesh leezaheir;" Minchat Shlomo pp.88-90; and Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Halperin, Maaseh Choshev p. 56.
69. Beit Yitzchak 2:31; Achiezer 4:6.
70. Rabbi Auerbach expresses this reservations about this position. Since the act of causing a phone to ring is always performed in this manner this may no longer be defined as "indirect causation" insofar as the laws of Shabbat are concerned; see Baba Kama 60a. Rabbi Auerbach, in an article appearing in the Torah journal Sinai (5705, p. 152), advances another reason to rule leniently in this regard. The Rabbis prohibited making a loud noise to prevent one from fixing a machine or instrument. When one causes the phone to ring in another 's home, the likelihood of a person's going to another's home to fix his telephone ringer in case of dysfunction is remote. It is quite possible that the rabbinic prohibition is inapplicable in such circumstances.
72. Rabbi Schmelkes, though, could respond that Ramo's ruling is limited to a case when the voice is heard exclusively through speech without the aid of any instrument. The question as to whether speaking into a microphone is considered to be a violation of "causing a noise to be heard" is contingent upon this disagreement between Rabbi Schmelkes and Rabbi Waldenberg: see Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:84 and Minchat Shlomo pp.66-68.
73. Professor Zev Lev discusses this issue at length in "Molid Zerem Chashmali Beshabbat," Techumin 2:35-58 (5741). According to some; this issue is related to whether causing more electricity to be generated at the power station constitutes a halachic problem. An increase in current may cause additional generation of electricity and hence, those authorities who rule stringently in this matter would forbid one to cause an increase in current. However, most believe one need not be concerned with this possibility; see Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah 1:23:137; see also note 81.
74. Minchat Shlomo, p. 110. This is the view of the Shulchan Aruch Ha-rav, Orach Chaim 511:7. However, Mishnah Berurah 511:26 and Aruch Hashulchan, Orach Chaim 511:12, both assert that this prohibition encompasses even adding scent to a garment that already has a scent.
75. Minchat Yitzchak 3:38; 3:60; and Brit Olam "Mechabe Umavir" no. 2.
76. Maaseh Choshev p. 47 and Rabbi Halperin's Maaliot BeShabbat p. 166.
77. See Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah 34:28.
78. Rabbi Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo p. 67) permits doing so but Rabbi Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim IV:85) permits doing so only in extenuating circumstances.
80. See Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah 23:52.
81. Yabia Omer 1:19; Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah 23:52 (and elsewhere); Shealot Uteshuvot Meirosh Tzurim p. 504; Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, "Maalit Automatit BeShabbat," Techumin, 5:75 (5744).
82. There have been two other suggestions of prohibitions that one would violate if one returns the phone to its holder on Shabbat. First, by hanging up the phone, one makes the person listening on the other end hear a dial tone. Some authorities assert that this is a violation of the rabbinic prohibition "to cause a noise to be heard." Second, one opinion states that returning the phone to its holder violates the biblical prohibition of "the final blow" (ma'keh bepatish); Rabbi Y. A. Zalmonowitz, Noam, 4:178; for those that dispute this view, see text accompanying note 68.
83. For reasons explained in note 44, no prohibition to reduce current exists.
84. Rabbi Waldenberg adds a ground that appears to be factually incorrect. He states that the sparks created from clothes are electrically different from the sparks created when closing and opening a circuit, since the latter can cause a fire to ignite and the former cannot; it is possible that his first reason is connected conceptually to this.
85. See e.g. Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 50:5 who disagrees and rules stringently in this matter. The Mishnah Berurah's position appears to be contradictory. Compare and contrast Mishnah Berurah 321:57 (especially Shaar Hatziyun 68); 340:17; Shaar Hatziyun 337:2 and 337:10.
All, however, accept that it is permitted to use a product on Shabbat which is designed to prevent the generation of static electricity in clothes.
87. Tosafot Shabbat 18a; Rif on id.; Rambam quoted in Beit Yosef, Orach Chaim 324 "ain."
88. Rabbenu Chananel commenting on Shabbat 18a; Rosh on id.; see generally Beit Yosef commenting on Orach Chaim 252 and 324 for a complete list of authorities.
89. Responsa Ben Yehudah 151; Goren David, Orach Chaim 15; Etan Aryeh 110-111.
90. Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:84. Rabbi Feinstein writes that the same prohibition applies to the use of television on Shabbat.
91. It would appear to these authors that this ruling is inapplicable to taping a television program on a video recorder on Shabbat (assuming the television is left off). In our opinion, that should be permitted because taping creates no visible sound or image on Shabbat and does not cause any disruption of Shabbat.
92. In fact, some maintain (based on Nemukei Yosef, Bava Kama 22a) that a biblical prohibition is violated; see Responsa Ben Yehudah 151.
93. Etan Aryeh #111; Mishpatei Uziel 1:223.
94. For a discussion of this, see Magen Avraham commenting on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 307:3; Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:60. Rabbi Feinstein writes that use of timers to automatically regulate machines to perform work forbidden to Jews on Shabbat is generally forbidden, with the exception of turning lights on and off. He believes that use of timers would severely disrupt the Shabbat atmosphere, since all of one's work could be performed by machines. Rabbi Feinstein asserts that just as the Sages did not want, and therefore forbade, our asking non-Jews to perform work on our behalf on Shabbat for fear that this would disrupt the Shabbat atmosphere (see Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 6:1), so too the Sages would not want machines to do work on our behalf during Shabbat. Rabbi Feinstein appears to be the lone authority to adopt this approach.
95. See Tzitz Eliezer 1:20:9; Chelkat Yaakov 1:49; Edut Leyisrael p. 122; Minchat Shlomo p. 66; Yechave Daat 2:57; Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 38:3 and 38:4; Maharam Shick, Orach Chaim 157; Minchat Moshe 8; Even Yekara 3:85; Yaskil Avdi, Orach Chaim 4:17.
96. Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh Deah 3:47:4. He states that some adjustments are forbidden on a biblical level and others are not, but he does not offer a rationale for these assertions.
97. Oz Nidberu 3:25 and 4:46:7. See Tzitz Eliezer 1:20:9, where Rabbi Waldenberg asserts that timers are muktza due to other considerations. Rabbi Breisch, Chelkat Yaakov 1:58 and 2:45, and Rabbi Weiss, Minchat Yitzchak 2:110, also consider timers to be muktza.
98. Moreover, since timers (according to Rabbi Auerbach) only indirectly cause work to be done, they cannot be considered to be in the category of muktza known as "utensils of prohibited usage" (kli shemelachto leissur).
99. If it is prohibited to use or adjust a timer, then such an appliance could be muktza. However, muktza cannot be the source of the prohibition and can only reflect a prohibition based on some other status.
100. Biur Halacha, Orach Chaim 334:22 " degram kebui mutar" notes that the accepted opinion is that indirect causation is permitted in all categories of prohibited work, and not just extinguishing. For a general review of these issues, see Afikei Yam 4:2 and Har Tzvi, Orach Chaim 148.
101. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 334:22 (and Biur Halacha).
102. Yabia Omer 3:18; Ketav Sofer, Orach Chaim 55; Zera Emet, Orach Chaim 44. See also, Maharam Shick, Orach Chaim 157; Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 38:2; Chelkat Yaakov 1:49.
103. Rabbi Soloveitchik's position is fully explained in an article by Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Maseh Vegramah Behalacha, 1 Beit Yosef Shaul 70-72 (1985). Rabbi Schachter cites both earlier and later authorities who agree with this approach.
104. Even Ha'ezer, Orach Chaim 328; Meorei Eish pp. 201-202. See Achiezer 3:60 for a further explanation of this position.
105. Minchat Shlomo p. 111. Rabbi Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:60) writes that a Sabbath violation is caused by delaying the onset of current, but he does not explain the reason for his position. See Oz Nidberu 8:32 where Rabbi Silber argues that any adjustment of a timer is a violation of building (boneh). It is possible that the Chazon Ish felt that way also; see Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim 38:2.
106. Only removing the peg is permitted, since that delays the onset of the electrical flow. Reinserting the peg to turn the current off at the time desired is only permitted if one accepts those authorities discussed above that one can hasten the extinguishing of an appliance.
107. Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah 13:25, n. 94, cites Rabbi Auerbach as maintaining that one may also delay the onset of current in those timers whose adjustment involves the pressing of a button to allow movement of the dial and releasing this button to set the dial.
108. Yaskil Avdi, Orach Chaim 7:23 and Oz Nidberu 8:32. 109. Minchat Shlomo, p. 111: Yabia Omer 3:18.


text:
Take Away's from LGBTQ Pride Month
Many people have participated in the celebratory events that occur during the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) Pride Month, but many are unaware of the origin of how this month came to be. As Pride month comes to an end, lets have a quick history lesson on how this much needed month of celebration, love, acceptance, and appreciation began.
LGBTQ Pride Month is currently celebrated each year in the month of June to honor the 1969 Stonewall Uprising in Manhattan. The Stonewall Uprising was a tipping point for the Gay Liberation Movement in the United States.
The Stonewall uprising was a series of violent confrontations that began between police and gay rights activists outside the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in the Greenwich Village section of New York City. As the riots progressed, an international gay rights movement was born.
Originally, the last Sunday in June was celebrated as "Gay Pride Day," but the actual day was flexible. In major cities across the United Stated the "day" began to grow! This "day" evolved into a month-long series of events, which now includes pride parades, parties, picnics, workshops, concerts and symposia. Pride events vary from city to city, and each Pride event represents the diversity amongst people in the LGBTQ community.
The Pride events also welcome allies to come celebrate and support the LGBTG community (as long as you know the appropriate ways to partake in these celebrations. If you don't visit: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/08/how-lgbt-ally-during-pride-month-and-beyond/381285001/ for more information). Many of the events are are sponsored by local business, corporations, and volunteer groups. These celebrations also include memorials for those who have been lost to hate crimes or HIV/AIDS that are part of the LGBTQ.
There are several purposes for this commemorative month. It is an opportunity for the community to come together and give praise and recognition to the advances and setbacks that have been made. It provides moments to shed light on the impact that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals have had on history locally, nationally, and internationally. It is a time to truly celebrate in a festive, safe, and affirming atmosphere.
Pride events occur internationally throughout the year, and they are most popular in Latin America, Canada, Australia and throughout Europe, though events are held in other parts of the world. So if you missed out on the various events that occurred during Pride month this year, be sure to look up the local events near you for the opportunity to show support, to observe, listen, be educated, and enjoy the festivities!
As former U.S. President, Barack Obama said "When all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free."
Happy Pride, from Clarity Clinic.
Gay Pride, LGBT, LGBTQ, Pride Month
Newer Traveling with Kids
Older 7 Ways to Cope With Flight Anxiety
LGBTQIA+ MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS
Ruby Maskey
June is Pride Month. A time for our LGBTQIA+ community members to celebrate individuality acknowledge those who came before us, and pave the way for those after.
Why Minority Mental Health Month Is So Important
While millions of Americans struggle with the reality of mental health conditions– whether they themselves have m...
Coping with LGBT Discrimination
Discrimination is a powerful negative cultural force affecting millions of people in our country. Members of the LGBT community are oft...
LGBTQ+ Awareness: Using Culturally Sensitive Terminology
Prior to Alfred Kinsey's acclaimed research on sexual behavior, it was commonly accepted that sexuality was a dichotomous concept. Kins...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Kingfisher Hospital
August 6, 20131 min read10 comments
Previous Location New Horizon School
Next Location Villa Teresa Catholic School – Moore
City/Town: • Kingfisher
Location Class: • Hospital
Built: • 1940 | Abandoned: • 2009
Status: • Demolished
Photojournalist: • Michael Schwarz
The City of Kingfisher needed an updated facility that had a better location, with the latest technology. This new hospital will serve the community with new equipment and better medical care. The old building had been built in 1940 and was not in ADA compliance. By building this new hospital, they are able to expand and provide OB/GYN services.
After many years of service and changes in health code the hospital came to a close in 2009 due many needy repairs. Construction for a new hospital started in 2007 and finished in 2009.
I was born there!
Does anyone know if this place is accessible
Devon Gregory Hughes
Reply to Blake
It has been demolished.
No, it was demolished around 2013
I have a few memories of that hospital. My brother was born there in 1975. I also remember going to my doctor's office near the hospital. He always gave "Smarties" candy 🙂
WOW…I grew up in that hospital and the attached Clinic. My father is Dr. Mark Gregory. I remember eating in that cafeteria, "sneaking" into the hospital for the vending machine when my parents were working late in the Clinic. I remember hanging out with the nurses in the labor and delivery nurses' station, the snacks in the gift shop. I never saw pictures of it abandoned, just demolished. Thank you so much for preserving my memories.
Extraordinary story and pictures. Simply a note…It was initially called Maurice Willows Hospital when it was initially implicit 1921. In 1941, the City of Tulsa supplanted Willows with Moton Municipal Hospital, named after Russa Moton. In the 1980s or 1990s chat rooms
it was changed to Morton, named after a conspicuous African-American doctor. ..
Gary Hixon
Did anyone save the Charlie Copeland Brick in the orginal entrance just inside door way on the east side of the building' He was a orginal doner to the old hospital but his brick was not moved to the new hospital like the orther plaques.
Blaistom
For a small town that building sure got tore up quick. Vandals are bad in that town it seems.
Reply to Blaistom
No, the vandalism is really not that bad in Kingfisher. The hospital was directly across from the Kingfisher Heritage School, which housed middle school and high school grades. When the hospital was abandoned in 2009, it was essentially used as a hang out for them. In 2011, they changed the school to house 3rd and 4th graders. The hospital was demolished.


text:
Game Over in China?
China's tide of online usage is turning.
Rick Munarriz
(TMFBreakerRick)
Updated: Nov 15, 2016 at 12:58AM
Published: Mar 7, 2007 at 12:00AM
Since 1995, Rick has been writing for The Motley Fool, where he's a consumer and tech stocks specialist. Yes, that's a long time with more than 20,000 bylines over those 24 years. He's been an analyst for Motley Fool Rule Breakers and a portfolio lead analyst for Motley Fool Supernova since each newsletter service's inception. He earned his BBA and MBA from the University of Miami, and he splits his time living in Miami, Florida and Celebration, Florida. Follow @market
Follow @@market
You can't stop progress. China is destined to learn that lesson the hard way, after its government's decision Tuesday to ban the opening of new Internet cafes in the world's most populous nation this year.
Keep in mind that the Web-connected bars haven't exactly been a growth industry. The number of cafes has clocked in at around 113,000 in each of the past few years. New locations have simply replaced establishments that have either failed outright or been shut down by a government worried about censorship lapses, Internet addiction, and the delinquency of minors.
In a developing nation where less than 10% of the population has regular online connectivity at home, Internet cafes are a quick fix for the citizenry's appetite for communication, information, and gaming.
Anatomy of an Internet cafe
Who exactly is going into these tech-friendly bars? According to the Ministry of Culture, more than two-thirds of the patrons are between 18 and 30 years old and 90% are male, with more than two-thirds of them coming in to play computer games.
Those games have become big businesses to some of China's most popular stocks, like Shanda Interactive (NASDAQ:SNDA), NetEase (NASDAQ:NTES), and The9 (NASDAQ:NCTY). Fantasy role-playing games are conducive to the Internet cafe climate, where players can socialize as they take part in the same game. A game of NetEase's Fantasy Westward Journey has had more than 1.3 million gamers living out their virtual lives simultaneously. The9's licensed Chinese version of Blizzard's World of Warcraft has followed in the footsteps of the Western hemisphere's growing "Warcrack" addiction.
Other companies like CDC (NASDAQ:CHINA) are trying to crack into the upper echelon of online gaming, but it's a competitive sector, and the Internet-cafe crackdown will likely hurt smaller players trying to get in the game.
If you shutter it, they will still come
Can China afford to silence the Web when its booming economic growth -- running at a 10% clip or better over the past few years -- has blossomed under somewhat friendly terms with its more open-minded foreign trading partners?
It's one thing to rewrite history and deny search engines like Baidu.com (NASDAQ:BIDU) or Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) the ability to show Chinese Internet users what really happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989. Taking down an entire leisure sector that employs, entertains, and empowers the masses would be both unlikely and ill-advised.
Excess can be dangerous, especially in a hungry country that is quickly transforming into a land of plenty. When you see folks lining up for blocks to snag a copy of an IPO prospectus, or criminal activity picking up at Internet bars after all-night gaming sprees, the appropriate instinct is to curb users' enthusiasm.
China has tried. Last week's tumble in Shanghai's stock exchange coincided with the government's move to raise margin requirements and cool off the speculative fervor. Now local Internet cafes are coming under political fire.
No one is comparing Chinese stocks or multiplayer role-playing games to moonshine -- well, I'm not, anyway -- but recent restrictive measures are about as likely to work as U.S. prohibition did in the 1920s.
You can make investors jump through a few more hoops, but as long as corporate fundamentals remain strong, good money will eventually chase good earnings growth. You can make it tougher to spend hours at an Internet cafe, but a prospering economy will only speed the online connectivity adoption rate in more secure home-based settings.
Even if there's more than a natural seasonal lull behind the recent slowdown in Web-based activity among China's top website destination, logic and evolution don't come with reverse buttons.
Like China in a bull shop
China is trying to cool down hot trends, but its efforts are a lot like laying a mountain of cheese puffs in the path of a freight train. You'll get a lot of crunchy noise and powdery dust, but the powerful locomotive will still get through.
China's growth story is too strong for investors to ignore. Our Stock Advisor and Rule Breakers newsletters have made multiple Chinese stock recommendations over the past few years. Even Motley Fool Hidden Gems got in on the fun, with its selection of online travel-booking specialist Ctrip.com (NASDAQ:CTRP).
A popular American protest song once lamented that they were tearing down trees to build parking lots. I don't think we'll ever hear a Chinese folk song go on about tearing down Internet cafes or IPO prospectuses for the sake of erecting mountains of cheese puffs. Then again, if it did happen, it would probably be a hit.
And even bad lyrics can't get in the way of a hit record.
Baidu, NetEase, and Shanda have all been recommended to Rule Breakers subscribers. Ctrip is a Motley Fool Hidden Gems newsletter pick. Pick a newsletter -- any newsletter -- and the free 30-day trial subscription is on us.
Longtime Fool contributor Rick Munarriz is a fan of China's growth story -- and cheese puffs -- but he does not own shares in any of the companies in this story. He is also part of the Rule Breakers newsletter research team, seeking out tomorrow's ultimate growth stocks a day early. The Fool has a disclosure policy.
SNDA.DL
Shanda Interactive Entertainment
UNKNOWN:SNDA.DL
NTES
NASDAQ:NTES
NCTY
NASDAQ:NCTY
NASDAQ:BIDU
CHINA.DL
CDC Software
UNKNOWN:CHINA.DL
TCOM
NASDAQ:TCOM
Checking the Quality of Changyou.com's Growth
Is Giant Interactive's Growth for Real?
This Week's 5 Smartest Stock Moves
Shanda Shares Surged: What You Need to Know
3 Companies to Avoid This Earnings Season
Game Over in China? @themotleyfool #stocks $SNDA.DL $NTES $NCTY $GOOGL $BIDU $CHINA.DL $TCOM Next Article


When we visited my grandma in Brooklyn, she used to keep my parents up too late talking. But we kids woke up early. My grandma always let the other adults sleep, and took me and my younger brother downstairs to make cheese blintzes for everyone. Making blintzes for nine people took all morning. From when I was eight years old, my job was to stand on a chair so I could reach the stove, and make the pancakes. My brother sat at the table and folded the cheese in. By the time we were done, my mom and dad and grandpa would have slowly made their way downstairs and drunk their coffee, and we'd have the blintzes for lunch, with cantaloupe and sour cream.
Nowadays cheese blintzes are too rich for lunch for us, and we have them for dinner, and even then not too often, with so much dairy. And instead of sour cream, we have Greek yogurt, with less fat. But they're still a big favorite with the kids, and with everybody.
First, the pancakes. In a two-cup glass measuring cup, mix one cup of flour with one cup of water, one egg, and a pinch of salt. There will be lumps in the batter; that's okay. Melt half a tablespoon of butter in a medium-sized frying pan over medium heat, and pour in about 1/8 cup of the batter. Immediately lift the pan up off the heat and swirl it around to spread the batter out as much as possible. Then replace the pan on the stove and let the pancake cook until most of the surface is dry, and only the lumps are wet. The edges will begin to curl up. Flip the pancake out of the pan on to a clean board. (My grandma covered her linoleum counter with waxed paper; I have a wooden work surface to flip on to and I skip the waxed paper). The raw surface should be down and the cooked surface up. If the pancakes stick a little, scrape off the place where they stuck with a spatula and re-grease the pan. If they keep sticking, stop and wash the frying pan and start over.
Once you've got the hang of the pancakes, mix up the filling. In a medium-sized mixing bowl, mix eight ounces of Friendship fresh farmer's cheese with one egg, a pinch of salt, and two tablespoons of sugar. Or, make your own ricotta: heat a gallon of milk in a stainless steel saucepan until it is very hot but not quite boiling. Add a tablespoon of sour salt (citric acid) or vinegar to a quarter cup of water, swirl it around, and add it to your hot milk. Stir for a minute, then let it sit for five minutes, then pour the curds and whey into a colander lined with cloth, and squeeze out most of the whey: that's ricotta. Eight ounces of Friendship cheese will make about 3-4 blintzes; the gallon of milk will make about a quart of cheese.
When the pancakes are cool enough to handle, place about a handful of filling near the edge of a pancake, and roll it up. Tuck the edges inside, as if you were beginning to turn the blintz inside out from both ends. Pinch a little to keep the ends tucked in.
When you have made all the blintzes, add two tablespoons of butter to the frying pan and gently put the blintzes in to fry on their other side. Cook until they are browned on the bottom, a few minutes, then flip them to brown on the other side. Repeat until you have fried all the blintzes. Reheat in the microwave if necessary, and serve hot with whole milk Greek yogurt, applesauce, and/or cantaloupe. Some people eat their blintzes with jelly, but we never did.
Cheese blintzes are vegetarian, but they're not vegan.
Can I keep cheese blintzes for later?
If you can keep them from all being eaten at once, cheese blintzes are delicious cold for lunch the next day, or reheated in the microwave.


text:
Wu-Tang Forever: (4XLP Black Vinyl)
This Is a Pre-Order: Item will start shipping mid-September.
Black Vinyl
Emerging in 1993, the Staten Island, NY-based Wu-Tang Clan proved to be the most revolutionary rap group of the mid-'90s – and only partially because of their music. Turning the standard concept of a hip-hop crew inside out, the Wu-Tang Clan is assembled as a loose congregation of nine MCs.
Despite limited radio/TV airplay, and a lead single that famously clocked at nearly six minutes with no chorus, Wu-Tang Forever debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 with 612,000 copies sold in its first week. The album was certified 4x platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on October 15, 1997 and has sold over 2 million copies in the United States. It is the group's highest selling album to date. Upon its original release, Wu-Tang Forever received favorable reviews from most music critics, while it also earned the group a Grammy Award nomination for Best Rap Album at the 40th Grammy Awards in 1998.


text:
OpinionCoronavirus
This article is more than 10 months old
Once again, America is in denial about signs of a fresh Covid wave
Eric Topol
In the past couple of weeks, UK, Germany, France and others are experiencing a new wave. The US should get ready
'Unfortunately, we have a mindset that the pandemic is over, which couldn't be further than the truth.' Photograph: Xinhua/REX/Shutterstock
Wed 16 Mar 2022 06.25 EDT Last modified on Sun 3 Apr 2022 08.56 EDT
When it comes to Covid, the United States specializes in denialism. Deny the human-to-human transmission of the virus when China's first cases were publicized in late 2019. Deny that the virus is airborne. Deny the need for boosters across all adult age groups. There are many more examples, but now one stands out – learning from other countries.
How concerning is it that Covid infections are rising in the UK?
In early 2020, with the major outbreak in the Lombardy region of Italy that rapidly and profoundly outstripped hospital resources and medical staffing, Americans expressed confidence that it won't happen here. That it couldn't happen here. And then it did.
Fast forward two years of the pandemic: the United Kingdom and Europe have provided five unmistakable warnings to America that a new surge was occurring. Within weeks, each time, the United States experienced a new wave, some not as severe (such as with the Alpha variant), some worse (Delta and Omicron variants). From this Covid track record over two years, it is palpable: what happens in the UK and Europe doesn't stay in the UK and Europe.
In the past couple of weeks, the UK and several countries in Europe, including Germany, France and Switzerland, are experiencing a new wave. At least 12 countries, geographically extending from Finland to Greece, are experiencing new increases in cases, some quite marked, such as Austria exceeding its pandemic peak, and Finland with an 85% increase from the prior week. Many of these countries are also showing a rise in hospital admissions.
This is the sixth warning from the UK and Europe to the United States.
Indications within the United States support the idea that new wave is already getting started. Wastewater surveillance is relatively sparse in the United States, but 15% of the 410 sites where it was conducted between 24 February to 10 March 2022 showed a greater than 1000% increase compared with the prior 15-day period. Also, the BA.2 variant is gaining steam in the United States and is now accounting for more than 30% of new cases.
The root cause for the new wave is hard to pin down. Certainly, the BA.2 variant is known to have increased transmission, at least about 30% more than its sister lineage, Omicron BA.1. With the concomitant reduction of mitigation restrictions and waning immunity protection of vaccines, that transmission advantage will increase. This "BA.2 triad" of factors is thus hard to dissect, as they are clearly interdependent. Rather than focusing on what precisely is driving the new wave, the imperative is to drive some preventive action.
As with the first five warnings from the UK and Europe, the United States did not take heed. Instead of proactively gearing up with non-pharmaceutical interventions (masks, quality of masks, distancing, air filtration, ventilation, aggressive testing, etc.), it just reacted to the surges when they were manifest. Now we are at a point with very low vaccination and booster rates, only 64% of the populations has had two shots, and 29% three shots. That puts the United States at 65th and 70th in the world ranking of countries, respectively.
Indeed, the people who need protection the most, besides those who are immunocompromised, are the 65-plus group. The US has a booster rate of 65% in this age group, whereas the UK and many European and Asian countries exceed a 90% booster rate for people 65 and over.
This is a critical issue, because there is a substantial dropdown of protection, from 90-95% with a third shot to 75-80% without a booster, versus Omicron hospitalization and death. The problem of lack of adequate vaccination in the United States is compounded by not having any plan for a fourth dose. The Israeli study of over 1 million people age 60 and over showed a 4.3 fold enhanced protection versus severe illness from Omicron compared with those receiving three shots.
Not only is there a gaping hole in our immunity wall, but the $58bn budget of the American Pandemic Prepared Plan (AP3), advanced by the White House to comprehensively address the deficiencies, was gutted by the Senate and reduced to just $2bn. Under threat are the order of more than 9.2m Paxlovid pills, the Test-to Treat program announced at the State of the Union address, better data, wastewater surveillance, efforts to develop a pan-coronavirus vaccine, research on long Covid, and many other critical public health measures.
We haven't even seen a new, major variant yet, but there are too many reasons to believe that is likely in the months ahead, owing to extensive animal reservoirs and documented cases of spillover to humans, a large number of immunocompromised people in whom the virus can undergo accelerated evolution, rare but increasingly seen co-infections, and lack of containment of the virus globally. That, in itself, requires preparedness. Unfortunately, we have a mindset that the pandemic is over, which couldn't be further than the truth, as I wrote about in the epidemic of Covid complacency.
Add to all this is what is happening in China, which has fully relied on a zero-Covid policy, resulting in very little natural immunity, and vaccines that have weak efficacy against Omicron. Now this country is facing major outbreaks in two of its most populous cities, Shanghai and Shenzhen, and undoubtedly the whole country will be affected. We learned in 2019 that what happens in China doesn't stay in China.
The time for American Covid denialism is long past.
Eric Topol is the founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, professor of molecular medicine, and executive vice-president of Scripps Research


text:
MFA: Armenia confirms being invader state by awarding those responsible for death of Azerbaijani soldier
There's a big confusion in the enemy forces camp regarding who controls whom, said Leyla Abdullayeva, spokesperson for Azerbaijan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Her remarks came in response to a report by the press service of the Armenian Ministry of Defense, which stated that the minister presented members of the personnel of the Armenian armed forces involved in the killing of an Azerbaijani soldier to high awards, Trend reports.
"It is clear that the leadership of Armenia, spreading false statements, is trying to evade responsibility. The Minister of Defense of this country, personally awarding the persons who executed his order on the killing of Azerbaijani soldier, thereby confirms that Armenia is an invader state," she said.
Abdullayeva said that this is an obvious evidence of the direct participation of the Armenian armed forces in the occupation of Azerbaijani territories.
Abdullayeva noted that this act of the Armenian Defense Minister also clearly demonstrates that Armenia is deceiving international mediators and shows a clear disregard for them.
"We would like to remind that during the visit of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to the region, the Armenian armed forces staged a bloody provocation using sniper fire and again committed a bloody crime a few days after the co-chairs made a statement in connection with their visit to the region. With regret, we are forced to note that it was precisely as a result of the irresponsible behavior of Armenia that the region is on the verge of increasing tensions," said the official.
"These provocations committed by war supporters in Armenia are an attempt to strike at the essence of the negotiations, being conducted to resolve the conflict. We emphasize once again that the entire responsibility for the development of events in this direction lies on the Armenian side," she said.