Neuralink: A Halachic Perspective on Privacy and Technology

"Hey there! The concept of Neuralink and its potential for mind-reading capabilities is absolutely groundbreaking. I'm curious, though, about the Jewish legal perspective on privacy in this context. With the technology's ability to potentially interpret thoughts without speaking, what halachic issues might this raise about personal privacy? Furthermore, how do Jewish ethical principles suggest we handle the use of mind-reading tech responsibly, ensuring a balance between the rights to privacy and the benefits to society? Additionally, how could this affect the observance of Shabbat, given the concerns around using electronic devices and the activities that are restricted on the Sabbath?"

It is important to know that the outlook of the Torah about being responsible for your thoughts is not like the accepted idea of the non-Jewish world. In the non-Jewish world one is not responsible for one's thoughts as long as one behaves according to the law there is no accountability for what one is thinking, however, according to Jewish law one has great responsibility and accountability for what one is thinking. The Talmud Tractate Yuma 29a writes that the thought and fantasize of the sin is worse than the actual act of sinning. The commentaries explain that the thought affects one soul and fantasizing about sin soils the soul of a person, The Sefer Nefesh Hachaim writes that like the inner sanctuary of the Beis Hamikdash is called the holy of holies same too the mind of a person is considered the inner sanctuary and like the holy of holies so when one thinks and fantasizes about sin it is considered like he has violated and contaminated the holy of holies. From this, we see how according to Jewish law one is very much accountable for one's thought, and the Neuralinks is a way to internalize this message like the holy Chafets Chaim when he saw the new invention of the voice recorder how it can record one spesking he said this lesson for us to internalize what is written in the Mishna in Avot chapter 2 Mishana 1:

והסתכל בשלשה דברים ואי אתה בא לידי עבירה דע מה למעלה ממך עין רואה ואוזן שומעת וכל מעשיך בספר נכתבין:

"Reflect upon three things and you will not come to sin: know what is above you—a seeing eye, a hearing ear, and all your deeds are written in a book."

Same too with the new technology like Neuralinks gives an idea of how the Hashem observers even our thoughts as it is written in Rashi Bamidbar chapter 16 verse 22.

From the aspect of Halacha, there are two areas that we will explore using the neuralink technology

1.       The responsibility and legal accountability for causing harm to a person's property or inflicting injury through the use of Neuralink.

In the domain of Issur Ve'hetter (prohibitions and permissions), we find that mere thought can precipitate a halachic ruling. For instance, in the matter of separating Terumah (a tithe for the priest), the Talmud Bavli in Tractate Kiddushin 41a discusses the concept that one can effectuate the separation of Terumah merely through intention. Rashi elucidates this point with the example: "In thought - one may direct his gaze to one side while consuming [produce] from the other, as it is stated (Numbers 18), 'and it shall be accounted for'."

This is brought in Halacha of Maimonides (Hilchot Terumot Perek 4 Halacha 16) and in the Shulchan (Aruch Yore Dea Siman 331, 41)

הפריש תרומה במחשבתו ולא הוציא בשפתיו כלום, הרי זה תרומה, שנאמר ונחשב לכם תרומתכם (במדבר יח, כז).

"He separated Terumah in his thoughts but did not express anything with his lips, it is still considered Terumah, as it is said, 'and it shall be accounted unto you for your Terumah' (Numbers 18:27)."

This illustrates the principle that the act of thinking can indeed fulfill the requirement of Hafraashat Terumah, highlighting the potential halachic implications of thought-driven actions facilitated by technologies like Neuralink.

However, when it comes to civil law (Dinei Mamonot), there is a significant debate and disagreement regarding one's liability for damages caused by thought..

The Talmud Bavli tractate (Bava Kama 100a and Bava Metsiah 2a),

מחיצת הכרם שנפרצה - אומר לו גדור, חזרה ונפרצה - אומר לו גדור, נתיאש הימנה ולא גדרה - ה"ז קידש וחייב באחריות'

"The fence of the vineyard that was breached - he (the owner) is told to repair it. If it was breached again - he is told again to repair it. If he despaired of it and did not repair it - he has neglected it and is liable for any consequences."

The above Gemara discusses a vineyard planted near a field of grain, separated by a fence, which permits the planting of grain near the vineyard. If the fence is breached, it is incumbent upon the vineyard owner to repair it. only when the vineyard owner decides in his mind to not fix it only then does the neighbor's grain field become prohibited for any use, since it is considered to have grown in a vineyard as stated in Devarim (chapter 22 verse 9). Therefore, the vineyard owner must compensate his neighbor for this. We see that the liability is only when he decides in his mind that he will not fix the fence.

The Ramban, in his treatise on the law of Garmi, explains that since the prohibition of benefit associated with Kil'ayim occurs through human thought—the despair of separating the vineyard and the seeds—this damage is defined as "Garmi."

According to the Ramban, it appears that damage caused by thought (despairing of it) necessitates compensation under the category of "Garmi." (other Rishonim have explained in different ways why the damage is defined as "Garmi," without mentioning the consideration of human thought in their discussion).

So, we do find from the above a source that one is liable Medina degarmi (liability for cause of damage) through thought.

However Le’halacha, we can differentiate using neuralink from all of the above and say that when using Neaurolink one is definitely liable, and isn't even called indirect damage, but rather it is considered direct damage. Since using Neuralink is not thought itself but rather a step above “thought”, it works on the sensors that are activated through thought and so it is just like one's hand that is activated through thought that one is liable.

Same too with regard to Shabbat, it is considered ‘Melechaes Machshevet’ and it is considered to have done a Melacha on Shabbat.

Wishing you much success.

• Talmud Tractate Yoma 29a
• Sefer Nefesh Hachaim Perek 4
• Mishna in Avot chapter 2 Mishna 1
• Rashi, Bamidbar chapter 16 verse 22
• Talmud Bavli, Tractate Kiddushin 41a
• Ramban, treatise on the law of Garmi