Tech in the Shomer Shabbat Home

A while back, Google introduced the Google Home Hub, a kind of alarm clock-tablet-speaker that people can place around the home. One of the features of this home hub is what the company calls "Ambient EQ" - which "dynamically adjusts the color temperature and brightness of your display to create a non-intrusive smart display experience. Using the sensor on the top of the device, Ambient EQ adapts the display brightness and color temperature to match the surrounding environment, so that your display resembles a physical photo."

In other words, the device will automatically adjust the color on the screen based on the light in the room. Sounds great - and it is: you turn off the lights, and the screen goes dark so that you're not blinded when you're trying to sleep. You open the window shades and it adjusts so the screen always looks great.

Of course, this sensor and the automatic changes raise halachic issues for the Shomer Shabbat consumer. You can always just turn the feature off (see here). But I'm wondering: does the halachah require people to disable such a feature? It seems to be a psik reisha (an immediate, direct response) to a change in light. And it also seems to be "nicha lei" - I do like my screen to look its very best. But do I care enough? I imagine that at some point these sensors will become so ubiquitous that we may not even have the option of turning them off (which will necessitate someone developing a Shomer Shabbat version of whatever Google Home operating system these things use...)

What do you think? Is it a halachic issue? A chumrah?

My Two Cents on the KosherSwitch: Forbidden Today. In the Future? Not So Sure...

The OrthoWeb is once again ablaze about the KosherSwitch (which is not in fact new in any way). If you haven't seen the press, just google it. I've written before about similar issues, such as texting on Shabbat and Shabbat speaker systems.

First let me make it clear that I am not in any way in favor of the KosherSwitch, and don't support its use in normal situations. It's pretty clear that I'm not alone in this view. That being said, a few comments:

Most lay people have trouble distinguishing between sha'at hadchak and lechatchila. One person's lechatchila is another's sha'at hadchak. Would you suggest to someone minimally religious, who tells you that they use the lights in their home - to install this switch? Is it permissible in medical situations? Security situations? Would you install one (or a similar switch) in your shul connected to an emergency alarm in case of medical emergency or some kind of terror attack? A person versed in halachic thinking readily appreciates the nuanced differences, but lay people often wonder at our nuanced perspective, and adopt the lenient view thinking, "I'm not that frum anyway."

Many rabbis have criticized the KosherSwitch as a device which will essentially ruin the essence of Shabbat, turning it into a glorified Sunday. Again, for technical halachic reasons, I'm against using this switch in normal situations. But I don't know how we're supposed to claim that using electricity ruins the spirit of Shabbat, when we do it all the time.

Many years ago, in a famous responsa, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein severely limited the use of Shabbat timers, as he considered having melachot being performed automatically to be a violation of Kibud Shabbat. He only permitted, begrudgingly, the use of Shabbat timers for lights, but not anything else.

He forbade their use, and the world adopted their use for everything from air conditioners to lights to alarm clocks (they have kosher clocks too, with haskamot of poskim). Essentially, we live in a world that universally allows the switching on and off of electrical devices on Shabbat as long as we do it beforehand. And we don't bat an eyelash about it. Has this practice turned Shabbat into Sunday? Hardly. It's just what we're used to.

Would a rabbi permit a quiet Shabbat robot to sweep the floor after we go to sleep on Friday night? How about a dish washing machine that works on a timer, and washes the dishes so they can be clean on Shabbat morning? (may authoritites already allow this). Why is it greater shmirat Shabbat for me to have to wash those very same dishes by hand? I can well envision my grandchildren (I should live and be well) asking me: "What? You washed dishes by hand on Shabbat morning? Why?" How would we feel about a robot that was programmed to clean the table and clear the kitchen after we've already gone to sleep? (not yet invented, but is it that hard to imagine?) Why are we OK with live "help", but find mechanical assistance so troubling?

I get the sense that halachah has yet to settle on a way of categorizing and addressing the incredible technological advances we have witnessed over the past twenty years. We're fine with hashgachah (for kashrut) over video systems, but not with conducting a virtual minyan. We accept Shabbat clocks and lamps, but not switches. It's incredibly confusing for rabbis - much less your average ba'al habayit (layperson). This imbalance is natural and to be expected. A halachic system that slowly developed over centuries is not designed - nor should it - instantly digest incredible changes in lifestyle and society. Our natural halachic "conservatism" is what has maintained us all these years. And yet, we must also acknowledge that something is out of whack, and it will take time for things to come back into balance. We should not cavalierly dismiss people who use the Shabbos switch as "mechalelei Shabbos" who are "turning Shabbos into Sunday." While they might not have an explicit heter, that's a far cry from Chillul Shabbat.

I wonder what poskim who lived two hundred years ago would say about our Shemirat Shabbat - with our kosher lamps (which you essentially turn on and off) and our whole-house timers and our Shabbat ovens. I get a sense that they'd be shocked. I also have a strong feeling that our sense of what Shabbat is or is not will have very little bearing on the practices of future generations.

Their Shmirat Shabbat might look very much different than our own.

Apple Partners with Machon Zomet of Alon Shvut, Israel, to Create ShabbatModeAppleWatch

September 15, 2014

Cupertino (JTI) - With great fanfare, Apple, the worldwide leader in portable technology, recently introduced the AppleWatch, a smart-phone connected smart-watch which monitors health, relays messages, tells time, and performs hundreds of other currently unknown functions, which will only become known when they are actually developed. Yet, this new device will present a challenge to Sabbath observant Jews, who cannot text, email, watch movies on their wrists, or send playful pings to their spouses sitting on the other side of the mechitzah.

Solving a Dilemma
To alleviate the Shabbat concerns of the AppleWatch, and to encourage the large market of religious Jews who will rush to buy Apple's latest offering, Apple reached out to the Zomet Institute in Alon Shvut outside Jerusalem, which has developed numerous technological innovations that allow Jews to live fully technological lives, without technically violating the Shabbat, according to some opinions.
"We were excited to work with Apple," said Rabbi Israel Rosenberg of Zomet. "The AppleWatch will undoubtedly become the must-have item of 5775, and we wanted to ensure that religious Jews weren't left out."
Asked about the modifications necessary to turn on the AppleWatch SabbathMode, Rosenberg beamed. "You don't have to do anything at all. The SabbathModeAppleWatch comes pre-programmed to sense your exact location, down to plus or minus two centimeters, so that the watch can turn on the Sabbath mode setting automatically for the next eleven thousand years, based on your location, the time, the day of the year, and whether you hold of Magen Avraham or Rabbeinu Tam." Asked how a watch could possibly identify an individual's halachic propensity, Rosenberg simply said, "Siri knows."

What Does it Do?
What does the AppleWatch do in SabbathMode?
"Actually," said Rosenberg, "this presented both halachic and technological challenges." As the AppleWatch is a health-monitoring device, Zomet felt reluctant to limit the blood-pressure monitoring software in the case of a health-related need. Thus, the watch will, based on an individual's health status, decide whether to (a) shut down health monitoring, (2) monitor blood pressure regularly or (3) call Hatzolah, if necessary. Zomet programmed the watch to call the appropriate phone number, again based on location.

What does the device do on Shabbat for a healthy wearer?
Rosenberg explains that the patented technology, sensing the arrival of Shabbat, deactivates all sensors and wireless communication, and places the AppleWatch in a time-only mode for the duration of the day of rest. The software also deactivates the alarm, and any buttons, so that a Sabbath observant wearer does not accidentally press a button, forcing him to wear the watch in StopWatch mode for 24 hours.

But if all the SabbathModeAppleWatch can do is tell you the time, how then is the SabbathModeAppleWatch different than any other watch?
Rosenberg smiled broadly.
"Ahhh, but it is different. Very much so. It's a ShabbatModeAppleWatch."

Half Shabbos/Shabbat Comes to the Holy Land. Is it Zomet's Fault?

The cover story on texting
on Shabbat

Back in Israel after a relatively long family vacation, I was rifling through the Motzash magazines I missed (that's the magazine put out by Mekor Rishon, the paper most favored by the Religious Zionist community), and noticed that they did a long piece on the phenomenon of otherwise religious people texting on Shabbat.
The piece clearly generated a significant backlash (suggesting that rather than reporting on a phenomenon, Motzash actually helped to create one), because in the next issue the magazine editor defended himself from that charge, and it devoted two pages to responses from Rabbi Yona Goodman, Director of Chinuch Emuni (faith-related education) of the Orot College of Education (where I happen to work) and one from Rav Yisrael Rosen, the director of the Zomet Institute for Halachah and Technology. You can read the articles here.

The Responses of Rabbis Goodman and Rosen

Most American readers will probably not be surprised that the phenomenon has reached the Holy Land. It's been discussed in educational circles for several years now. People have been taking shortcuts (or making personal decisions about keeping certain halachot while ignoring others) since we received the Torah. Is this a phenomenon? Is it more unique than entire sections of the community ignoring halachot about negiah, or tzniut, or watching inappropriate media? Personally, as I too find myself addicted to my smartphone, I relish the fact that I cannot look at it on Shabbat, and feel sorry for people so addicted that they can't put it down for that twenty-four hour period. I also usually leave my phone home when I go to shul during the week; it's one less thing to distract me from the davening itself.
Yet, the conclusion to Rav Rosen's article fascinated me. After noting happily that the article outlines people who text on Shabbat aren't calling to change halachah, but instead don't think that their behavior is that terrible halachically (on the grand scale of things), he offers a fascinating confession:

In truth, as the head of Machon Zomet, which develops "gimmicks" to circumvent the prohibitions of Shabbat, mainly in the areas of electricity and electronics in the areas of medicine, security and similar fields, I ask myself many times if we are not legitimizing disrespect for the laws of Shabbat, specifically with regard to technology. Do we not bear some of the responsibility for the drift towards the slippery slope of tradition of "rounding of corners" in the words of the interviewees in the article?

It's  a great question. Why specifically are we seeing this trend of corner-cutting specifically in the area of technology? Why aren't people cutting corners in the laws of Borer, or carrying outside an eiruv, or any other area of the Laws of Shabbat? Might people think to themselves, even subconsciously, "Well, if a doctor can make a call on his cellphone; if he can type on his nifty computer - then it can't really be that big of a deal, can it?" Sadly, Rav Rosen clears himself of all responsibility.

My answer is that exact opposite is true. The gimmicks of Machon Zomet, limited specifically to cases of great need, testify like a hundred witnesses to the vitality of halachah, which includes allowances to account for necessary circumstances, even if there is no danger of loss of life. The solutions of Zomet do not negate the Halachah. Rather, they highlight the imminent possibilities hidden within it, which say: Up to this point is forbidden, but from this point forward is permitted. Openings such as these are the foundations of the unfrozen Jewish Halachah, a guiding light for legitimate Poskim. However, these boundaries are not given into the hands of each and every individual, but instead [only] to those rabbis and their students spread and involved across the chain of the halachic generations. For the development of Halachah is one of the foundations of our faith.

Read what he wrote again, because it's certainly a mouthful. First and foremost, Rav Rosen's Hebrew is rich and difficult. And I also agree with his underlying conclusion: Halachah isn't static; it does adjust to the needs and developments of time. It's easy to say no, and much, much more difficult to find creative halachic solutions to challenging problems.
Moreover, the new reality of a Jewish country presents challenges that simply must be addressed: What is the meaning of Shabbat in an Israeli hospital? Or army? Or police? The country cannot and will not shut down. Even if you could, would you want to rely on non-Jews to run the country every seventh day? Was that really the ideal given to us at Sinai? (ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת - The nation of Israel shall guard the Shabbat [and have all the goyim do the stuff they can't?]") I don't believe this to be the case.
I firmly believe in the great work of Zomet, and the fascinating approach that they've taken to addressing difficult challenges of fealty to Shabbat in an increasingly technological world. But at the same time, Rav Rosen, "Thou doth protest too much!" ("Testify like a hundred witnesses"? Really?) Can we really say that the leniencies of Zomet have not, to some degree, contributed to this phenomenon of casualness towards observance of halachah in the area of technology? Issuing lenient opinions related to Shabbat and technology is exactly what Zomet does, day in and day out. So it can't just wash its hands when we see negative effects of that work, as important as it is.
What then is Zomet to do?
I believe that Zomet must begin to take the other side of the coin, and speak not only about things that are permitted, but things that are forbidden. It should embark upon a campaign for Shemirat Shabbat - perhaps on an elevated, more stringent level - precisely because so much of our community must invoke the kulot in their lives either as doctors, or soldiers or as members of local security details across the country. After all, it's impossible to measure the effect of permitted use on a person's attitude towards Shabbat. After you've used the computer (with the kosher mouse and keyboard) to manage your yishuv's security cameras, how greatly does that affect your attitude towards the normal, non-Shabbat computer? Is there any way to really answer that question?
Of course half-Shabbat is not Zomet's fault. But it also bears a responsibility to counter the negative affects of its work, so that it ensures that as it finds important workarounds to challenging questions, it isn't undermining the very value of Shemirat Shabbat it works so hard to uphold.

Upping the Ante: A New Shabbat Speaker System

For previous posts discussing technology and Shabbat see here and here.

One of the more enjoyable aspects of being a community rabbi was the opportunity to speak from the pulpit every Shabbat. I worked very hard at it, writing my speeches beforehand, giving a good deal of thought not only to what I would say, but how I'd say it. Yet, one aspect of the Shabbat Drashah presented a challenge that was never easy to overcome. Instead of speaking from the pulpit, I had to scream. Otherwise, no one would have been able to hear me.
The main sanctuary in our shul is indeed beautiful. But it was also quite deep (and narrow), with the women seated behind the men. In order for any of the women to hear me at all, I learned to speak slower, but also how to project at a rather high volume. Essentially, I had to yell without yelling. And, as any public speaker will tell you, that takes away any possibility of nuance in tone. It's all one tone: loud.
It would have been much easier to speak using a microphone. Only there wasn't one that was widely accepted for Shabbat use. At least there wasn't until now.

Machon Zomet recently introduced a new Shabbat microphone system brandishing its stamp of approval. In truth, from a halachic point of view, this is really nothing new. People (including my son) have been using hearing aids for years, and hearing aids are essentially identical to the system in question. Moreover, the issue of sound systems on Shabbat has enjoyed comprehensive halachic analysis from many different circles, and while many modern poskim permit its use, you simply don't see them in normative Orthodox shuls. Why not? Because they don't feel right.
For some reason, the Orthodox community simply rejected the use of these microphone systems, labeling shuls that installed them as "progressive" or "liberal", which are code for "almost Conservative." In essence, the use (or lack of use) of these types of systems isn't halachic, but cultural. We don't use them because...we don't use them.
Yet, Zomet has, over the past thirty years, achieved a level of authority - especially in Israel, where you can find its stamp on many products that you buy every day, from water heaters to gas stoves - and even in the United States as well. I'm not sure how many shuls in America will order this system today. But you will begin to see them in Israel. In fact, Ynet (in Hebrew) just reported on a Shavuot evening program that used the microphone (and they probably gave a shuir about why they were using it). As more and more communities install these systems over time, the pressure to install them will grow, as people will rightly wonder why those hard of hearing, or the people in the back of the shul, or women (stuck in the balcony) shouldn't be able to hear the Chazzan or the Rabbi. After all, there are real tangible benefits to loudspeakers. Even in shul.
And, as so often happens, when Americans return to their shuls from a visit to Israel, they will begin to report on how wonderful davening was at the very reputable shuls in Israel at which they davened. And they'll start pressuring their rabbis to allow them to install the system in their shul as well.
Will the system become widely accepted in most Orthodox circles? Who knows? Moreover, as they become more widely adopted (which I think they will over time), I fear that they will also serve to further divide our community, between people who will daven in shuls with a microphone, and between those who don't. (Would a chareidi family daven at a family simcha in a shul which had a mike? Conversely, would the shul agree not to use the mike should a family make a request? I can see the fights already...)
Just to be clear, I am not personally comfortable with such a system. It just doesn't feel right. I really don't like the computer screen in the back of our shul that displays davening times. It just doesn't belong in the sanctuary.
My point is, something that doesn't feel right to me might not bother my children - or their children - at all. So while we might reject the use of this microphone today, there's no way to know if it won't be a part of some, or most Orthodox shuls in the future.

Shabbat, Phones and Techonology - The Story Continues

A follow-up to this post

Rena sent me a link to this article, about special Shabbat phones created by Machon Zomet which were purchased by the government to allow government officials to use them on Shabbat. I think that these phones are a great thing, for a number of reasons:
First of all, I think that it's great that the Prime Minister doesn't look at whether a person has a kippah on his head, but rather whether the individual is right for the job. Moreover, Shemirat Hamitzvot isn't considered a detriment that will hinder the civil servant's ability to get the job done. It's a fact, and it's also nice to know that the Prime Minister thinks so as well.
Some might wonder: if the situation mandates that one can talk on the phone on Shabbat - i.e. there's a matter of life and death, or national security - then a government official could use a regular phone. Why then buy the special phones? The answer has to do with the nature of work and "melachot" on Shabbat.
Let me take you back a few years to the birth of my third child, Leah. For our first three children, my wife had a habit of going into labor on Shabbat. At the birth, my wife actually arrived at the hospital with sufficient time to receive an epidural, and immediately asked for one. (other times she wasn't so lucky.) Yet, the doctor would not administer the drugs until she signed a waiver. Could she do so? Without a doubt, and I'll explain why.
A woman in active labor is, in halachic terminology, a חולה שיש בו סכנה - "one who is sick, and in (potential) mortal danger." According to halachah, we violate the Shabbat for someone in this situation, which is why we could have driven to the hospital had the cab not shown up on time. So, when the doctor insisted that she sign to get the drugs, according to Jewish law she was permitted to do so. Yet, we always try and minimize the violation of Jewish law, even when an act is permitted. So, while she could have signed the form normally, it was advisable for her to sign (i.e. write - which is a melachah on Shabbat) with a shinuy - in an abnormal manner. Normally, one is still prohibited from writing in an abnormal manner on Shabbat as well. But writing abnormally is a rabbinic prohibition, and doesn't rise to the level of a Torah prohibition. So she scribbled an X with her left (wrong) hand, the doctor was happy, and the drugs began to flow.
The same is true for our hard-working Israeli government officials. If the situation calls for them to speak to the Prime Minister on Shabbat, then in reality they could use a regular phone. Yet, it's far better for them to use a phone specially designed to present only rabbinic prohibitions, and not possible Torah violations.  (If you want to know how Machon Zomet does that, you should really visit them and hear their presentation. That's a lot of inside baseball that's beyond the scope of a blog post. For full disclosure, it's also important to realize that a number of major poskim completely disagree with Zomet's entire methodology, and don't consider many of the Zomet technological innovations to be halachically preferable. If you'd like to know more about it, listen to a shiur given by Rabbi Dovid Miller on precisely this issue, that he gave right after the YU Israel Kollel visited Machon Zomet this past year.)
This is also why doctors should make an effort to procure these special phones. While they often must call to issue orders on Shabbat, it's always best that they minimize the level of Shabbat violation as well, which is what these phones do.

The phones do present a challenging problem, that Rabbi Rosen, the Head of Zomet, alludes to when he says,

"If the user realizes the call isn't justified or is not urgent we recommend that they ask the caller to postpone the call until after Shabbat," Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, Zomet Institute head said. "But if the phone has already been picked up, there is no problem, as the actual action of talking on an already open device does not constitute Shabbat desecration." 

Let's say that you're a high-level official who gets a call about an important issue. You take the call and the topic is dealt with. But then, the guy on the other end of the line asks you about something that can really wait until after Shabbat. Will it wait? Will you hang up on him? Remember that he's probably not Shomer Shabbat himself? And, when members of the P.M.'s staff grow accustomed to being able to reach you on the phone, will they limit themselves to calling in only true emergencies? An even more difficult question to answer is: Where's the line between life and death that must be dealt with on Shabbat, and diplomacy and politics? It's a truly fine line. Finally, as these phones make inroads into the general population (for doctors, emergency workers and security personnel), will we grow so used to them that we'll no longer see using the phone as a form of chillul Shabbat?
In truth, Halachah truly does deal with not only how we speak - i.e. what implements we use, be they microphones, hearing aids or telephones - but what we say. The Torah forbids us from speaking about business on Shabbat, making deals, and even discussing mudane issues. But, we've become so form-focused, that we completely neglect the issue of content. Perhaps that's becase it's easy to draw clear lines: you can't use a telephone. The computer is forbidden. Put away the blackberry. It's far, far harder to censor the discussion itself. But in truth, on Shabbat it's not only how we say it. It's also what we say.
More on this later.

Texting on Shabbat: Assur Now, But in Fifty Years? Who Knows? The Lessons of Shabbat Makeup

A recent article in the New York Jewish Week has set the Jewish Internet ablaze with a fury about the apparently prevalent custom of Jewish teens who text each other on Shabbat. (Saying that they keep "Half-Shabbat" is especially disturbing.) While I at first wondered how prevalent this really is, Rav Yonah Goodman, head of the Department of Spiritual Education at Orot asked that very question to educators on an email forum, and received responses from American educators indicating that it happens much more than we think. (i.e. all the time.)
Let me be very clear: One is forbidden to text on Shabbat.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, it's not clear at all why. While every major posek agrees that one is prohibited from using electronics on Shabbat, the reasons behind that prohibition are not at all clear. Few poskim suggest that electricity is Biblically prohibited, and most use of electronics a rabbinic prohibition of one type or another. Moreover, in my recent visit to the Zomet institute in Alon Shvut, I saw a number of electronic implements that the institute had designed for Shabbat use for very specific purposes (safety, security and health) that according to their poskim are entirely permitted.
So, let us suggest for the sake of argument, that Zomet creates a version of the iPhone that's only permitted for use by doctors on Shabbat. After all, very often doctors need to email specific instructions about care and treatment of their patients. Many doctors in fact use their cellphones for this purpose nowadays. Would teens be able to use those very same cellphones to text their friends? I'm not entirely sure that the answer would be (some day in the future) a resounding "no." Why? Let's look at the curious case of Shabbat makeup.

For women, and especially young women, wearing makeup on Shabbat presents a very challenging hurdle to overcome. Simply put, a woman is not permitted to paint her face on Shabbat. It's a violation of the prohibited Melachah of Tzovea - "dyeing". (A man can't paint his face on Shabbat either. But he also can't paint his face during the week either.)
This can present serious challenges to Orthodox women. Many ladies accustomed to wearing makeup during the week simply feel ugly when they go out without their makeup. Moreover, on Shabbat they're not just running out to the grocery store. They're getting dressed up, going to shul, trying to look their best. And then we tell them, "Sure, look your best. Just don't make up your face, like you usually do." In today beauty-driven culture, not putting on makeup is truly a serious hardship for many women.
And yet, the original sources are pretty clear - from the Gemara all the way up to the Shulchan Aruch. The gemara (Shabbat 95a) writes,

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי אליעזר, אשה לא תעביר סרק על פניה בשבת מפני שצובעת

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, a woman may not apply red [coloring] on her face on Shabbat, because that is [considered the Melachah of] dyeing.

Rambam concurs, writing (Laws of Shabbat 9:13)

הצובע חוט שאורכו ארבעה טפחים, או דבר שאפשר לטוות ממנו חוט כזה--חייב.  ואין הצובע חייב, עד שיהא צבע המתקיים; אבל צבע שאינו מתקיים כלל, כגון שהעביר סרק או ששר על גבי ברזל או נחושת וצבעו--פטור:  שהרי אתה מעבירו לשעתו, ואינו צובע כלום; וכל שאין מלאכתו מתקיימת בשבת, פטור.

One who dyes a string the length of four tefachim, or material from which one could weave a string of that length - is in violation [of a Torah prohibition]. And the one who dyes is not in violation, unless the dye is lasting, but dye which does not last at all, like one who applies red or lacquer on copper or brass - is not in violation [of a Torah law]. For one is applying it temporarily, and is not "dyeing" anything. And any activity that is not lasting on Shabbat - is not in violation [of a Torah law].

At face value, that sounds good. Sounds like Rambam says it's OK. But it's not. This is because when Rambam uses the term פטור - "not in violation", he's only talking about the דאורייתא level - a Torah prohibition. Wherever we find the term, it still means that the activity is rabbinically prohibited. So, according to Rambam, using makeup on Shabbat is not prohibited from the Torah, but is forbidden rabbinically.
Shulchan Aruch codifies this rule, writing (Orach Chayyim, 303:25)

אסור לאשה שתעביר בשבת סרק על פניה משום צובע. ומטם זה אסורה לכחול בשבת.

A woman is forbidden from applying red dye to her face because of [the prohibition of] dyeing. And, for this reason, a she is forbidden from painting her eyes on Shabbat.

Seems pretty cut and dry. No painting the face on Shabbat. No lipstick (which is also prohibited for other reasons), no rouge, blush, eyeliner or any of the other products women use to make themselves beautiful.

Enter the solution of Shabbat Makeup. Shabbat Makeup? How can there be Shabbat makeup? Didn't we just say that painting the face was prohibited? It all starts with a responsa of Rav Moshe Feinstein. Someone asked him about applying powder to the face on Shabbat, and Rav Moshe wrote (Orach Chayim 1:114),

וכן אסור לאשה לצבוע את פניה מדין צביעה. אבל לזרוק את הפאודער האבקה לבן על הפנים שלא מתקיים כלל, אין בזה איסור צביעה. ומלבד זה נראה שלא אסרו העברת סרק אלא מפני שהסרק נדבק יפה בעור הפנים.

And furthermore, it is forbidden for a woman to color her face due to the law of dyeing. But, to throw white powder on her face that does not last at all, is not prohibited from the perspective of dyeing. Moreover, it seems that [the Sages] only prohibited dying the face because the dye clings well to the skin of the face.

What did Rav Moshe permit here? Did he permit Shabbat makeup? In a later Teshuva, he clarifies that he was talking about colored powders as well.
In an article discussing the matter on the Star-K website, Rabbi Dovid Heber writes,

HaRav Moshe Feinstein zt"l was of the opinion that one may use powdered makeup that is not long lasting. This circumvents the problem of tzovaya. This powder is commonly known as "Shabbos makeup." Rav Moshe only allows the use of certain powders that have been carefully tested to ensure they are not long lasting. HaRav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l disagrees and opines that all makeup may not be applied on Shabbos regardless of how long it lasts. This opinion is more widely accepted by Poskim. According to Rav Shlomo Zalman, all makeup, even "Shabbos makeup," is forbidden to use on Shabbos. One should consult a Rav to determine which opinion one should follow.

The article then gives a detailed description of the proper application of the Shabbat makeup. Yet, Rav Moshe was not the only posek to offer a lenient opinion on the issue. Rav Ovadyah Yosef also ruled permissively when he wrote (Yechaveh Daat 4:28),

ואף על פי שאנו אין לנו אלא פסק מרן השלחן ערוך להחמיר, אבל אין להוסיף לאסור גם נתינת פודרא שאינה מתקיימת כלל, וגם אינה נדבקת בפנים, כמו העברת סרק ואודם שפתים. ולכן יש להתיר נתינת פודרא גם צבעונית, ובלבד שלא תהיה מעורבת במשחה או קרם. וראה לרבינו אליעזר בר נתן, הראב"ן (סימן שנ"ד), שהתחשב להקל בנידון כזה, מטעם שלא יתגנו על בעליהן, בפרט לאשה הרגילה בכך. ובשל סופרים הלך אחר המיקל, כמבואר במסכת עבודה זרה (דף ז' ע"א). וכן פשט המנהג להקל והנח להם לישראל.

And even though we only have the ruling of Maran HaShulchan Aruch who is strict, nonetheless we should not add [the prohibition of] place powder that does not last at all, and also does not stick to the face, as in the case of [normal] makeup and lipstick. Therefore, one may permit the application of even colored powder, as long as it is not mixed with any ointment or cream. See also the ruling of Ra'avan, who considered ruling leniently in this matter, taking into consideration the factor that [women] do not become repulsive to their husbands, especially if a woman is accustomed to this. And in matter of Rabbinic [prohibition] we follow the lenient opinion, as we find in Masechet Avoda Zara. And so the custom has spread to be lenient, and "leave it to the Jewish people."

As a personal aside, I never really understood the leniency of Shabbat Makeup. After all, if the whole point of the product is to color the face, how then can someone argue that the color doesn't last. If the color didn't last, then no one would use it. The fact that women do use it, and can put it on in the morning and have it last at least until they come home from shul seems to indicate to me that some coloring is going on. See the video here as Shaindy applies the Shabbat makeup, telling you not to "dab" - which she then does, and not to paint a line over the eyes, which she also seems to do. To me, the "before" and "after" say all that needs to be said. And, Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach, who was known as an expert in matters of Shabbat, and wasn't unusually strict, categorically rejected the idea of Shabbat Makeup. But my opinion really doesn't matter on the issue, for a few reasons:
1. Rav Ovadya Yosef and Rav Moshe Feinstein permitted it, and if one wants to rely on their opinion, their shoulders are certainly broad enough.
2. Women already use Shabbat makeup, and take it for granted that it's permitted.
In my Hilchot Shabbat class at Orot, one of the students gave her model lesson on this issue (I actually wrote this piece with the aid of her sheets), and nearly all of the students took it for granted that using this type of makeup is permitted on Shabbat. Moreover, here in Israel there aren't brands of makeup with "hechsherim" like you can get in America. They just buy powdered makeup and apply it with a brush. This, I think, leads us to the most important part of Rav Ovadia's leniency: the last three words - הנח להם לישראל - "leave it to the Jewish people."
He doesn't even finish the sentence or explain what he means. Rabbi Howard Jachter, on his excellent website explains:

The point of departure for the lenient approach is that the prohibition to apply Serek (the cosmetic discussed by the Gemara) is only rabbinic in nature.
We should note that this is a typical approach of Poskim who seek to present a lenient approach in case of great need. The first step is to demonstrate (if possible) that there is no possibility of violating a Biblical prohibition. Thus, the first step of the lenient argument regarding cosmetics is to prove that the prohibition to apply Serek is only rabbinic in nature and thus there is more room to be lenient than had it been classified as a biblical prohibition...
In this context Rav Ovadia Yosef explicitly states a motivation for adopting a lenient approach to this issue. In Teshuvot Yabia Omer he states that his concern is “Shema Titganeh Ishah Al Baalah”, that domestic tranquility might be disturbed. The source for this idea is the Gemara (Shabbat 64b), which records that Rabi Akiva permitted wives to wear makeup even when they are Niddot, in order to promote Sh’lom Bayit (domestic tranquility) between husband and wife...

In Teshuvot Yechave Da’at, Rav Ovadia refers to the oft-cited Gemara (Pesachim 66a) that states regarding an area of uncertainty with respect to the Halachot governing Korban Pesach, “leave it to the Jewish People, if they are not prophets then they are the children of prophets”. Rashi (ad. loc. s.v. B’nai) adds “and [therefore] observe what they (the Jewish people) do” and that will resolve the uncertainty. Rav Ovadia applies this principle to this situation, as he notes that many women who are meticulously observant rely on the lenient approaches of Rav Moshe and the K’tzot Hashulchan.
We should note that this principle of “if they are not prophets then they are the sons of prophets” applies only to an area of uncertainty in Halacha and only to the practices of those who carefully observe Halacha. The sin of the golden calf clearly demonstrates that it is not an all-embracing principle.

Thus, Rav Ovadia ruled leniently in this matter for three reasons:
1. It's not a Torah prohibition
2. It's a case of great need
3. People were doing it anyway
Sometimes, the poskim really do follow the people. If there's enough cause and the issue isn't clear-cut, the posek has "wiggle room", and current practice can influence halachic decisions. This type of psak is not for the narrow-shouldered. It takes a person of the stature of a Rav Ovadia Yosef to make this kind of ruling.

Let's return to the issue of texting on Shabbat.
Texting is such a new phenomenon that most adults simply can't relate to using texts as a primary source of communication. Sure, I text, but it's a pain in the neck to me. All those little buttons. I'm not good at it and can never get the spelling right.
The same is not true of young people today. My wife's students are so good at texting that they do it during class, in their pockets, without looking. (Yes, it's really disturbing.) I can't imagine texting someone on Shabbat. Apparently, many young people can't imagine not texting on Shabbat. Using Rav Ovadia's criteria, what about texting?
1. Is it a Torah prohibition? Most poskim say that electronics are only rabbinically forbidden.
2. Is there great need? I don't think so, but apparently the teenagers do.
3. Are people doing it anyway. Apparently they are.

The fact that this is a behavior that we take for granted as prohibited doesn't mean that this will always be true. So, is texting on Shabbat prohibited? Yes it is, without a doubt.
I'm just not so sure that it will be in another fifty years. Or less.