And Rabba said: Placing the spices on a hot piece of earthenware is also prohibited, because it produces a new scent in the earthenware. Rabba and Rav Yosef both said the following: It is prohibited to overturn a cup containing perfume onto silk garments on a Festival. What is the reason? It is because it produces a new scent in the garment. And in what way is this case different from the following baraita: One may press a piece of aromatic wood between his fingers and smell it, and one may also snip off a piece of it in order to release its fragrance and smell it? There, the scent exists in any case, and he merely adds to the fragrance. Here, one produces a new scent.
One is creating a new scent - the earthenware has a new scent that was not there before. It is rabbinically prohibited , as one who creates a new characteristic/entity ("dvar chadash") is similar to one who does a new melacha.
[§143] ...It is ברית, a covenant, the only contract and basis of every relationship between God and Jew, both as human and Israelite. For if you consider the world and yourself as God's property, and regard your power over the earth as lent to you by God for the fulfillment of your task in life, then your life will be lived in accordance with the Torah. But if you regard the world as your own and yourself as its master, then the contract is torn up, and you are just making sport of the Torah. Finally, it is ברכה, a blessing; if you thus renew your covenant with God every Shabbos, and dedicate yourself as God's servant, then on every Shabbos, God will give you renewed enlightenment of the spirit, enthusiasm and strength for the fulfillment of this great task. In this way you will realize how God really calls you to an elevated state of life which is especially experienced on Shabbos. Our Sages described this elevated state of the soul by saying that the Shabbos provides the Jew with an 'extra soul' or a 'super soul' (נשמה יתירה).
[§144] The melacha which is forbidden on Shabbos is conceived as the execution of an intelligent purpose by the practical skill of man. Or, more generally, production, creation, transforming an object for human purposes; but not physical exertion. Even if you tired yourself out the whole day, as long as you have produced nothing within the meaning of the term melacha; as long as your activity has not been a constructive exercise of your intelligence, you have performed no melacha. On the other hand, if you have engendered, without the slightest exertion, even the smallest change in an object for human purposes, then you have profaned the Shabbos, disregarded God, and undermined your calling as a Jew...
[§146]...The activity which is described in the Torah as one which destroys the essence of the Shabbos has to be a מלאכת מחשבת—that is the practical carrying out of an idea that shows the would-be dominion of the human mind over the world of matter. This comprises [note: 6 principles]:
(1) Consciousness: If the work is done מתעסק, unconsciously, so that it is not the genuine reflection of a human personality, the Torah does not regard it as melacha.
(2) Intention (כוונה): If the intention is directed to a non-productive activity [note: meaning, not a melacha], then even though the possible or even probable consequence of the action might be productive, the operation is not regarded as melacha...However, where the consequence of a melacha being performed is inevitably bound up with the intended activity (פסיק רישיה), the intention is deemed to extend to the melacha...
All this is nothing but the analysis of the essential concept of Shabbos: מלאכת מחשבת is an activity which shows the human spirit mastering the world for its own purposes with its technical skill.
שו"ת מנחת שלמה חלק א סימן ט
נתבאר לפי זה דלענ"ד נראה דבכה"ג דלא עשה כלל שום הדלקה או כיבוי כי אם מחבר רק את הטלפון עם הזרם אין לאסור בשבת ויו"ט לא משום מכה בפטיש ולא משום מוליד. (אך חושבני שהמון העם אינו יודע כלל להבחין בכך ויכול לטעות ע"י זה לומר שמותר גם להדליק ולכבות את החשמל בשבת, ולכן אף לדידן אין להתיר דבר זה כי אם במקום צורך גדול וכעין זה מצינו בשאילת-יעבץ, דאע"ג שסובר דעריכת שעון בשבת דומה לפתיחת וסגירת מנעול דשרי, אפילו הכי כתב שלמעשה נכון להחמיר,מפני שנראה בעיני הבריות כתיקון כלי, וכל שכן כאן...אך מה אעשה שכבר הורה זקן, והוא הגאון מוהר"י שמעלקיש ז"ל בשו"ת בית-יצחק יו"ד ח"ב סי' לא בהשמטות על דבר הטלפון לאסור משום מוליד...והדבר צריך הכרעה.
שו"ת מנחת שלמה חלק א סימן ט
ועכ"פ לדעת הבית יצחק פשוט הוא שאפי' אם אחרים מצלצלים אליו ג"כ אסור להגביה את שפופרת הטלפון ולענות, כי תיכף עם הגבהתו נעשה חיבור עם הזרם ומוליד בו כח זרמי. ברם נראה דאף אם נאמר דאסור משום מוליד, מ"מ מותר להגביר את הקול ע"י הגברת עוצמת הזרם ואין לחשוש בזה לאיסור מוליד, שהרי אמרו בגמ' ביצה כ"ג ע"א שמותר למלול עשבים שיש בהם ריח משום טעמא דריחא מיהו איתא ואוסופי הוא דקא מוסיף כך גם כאן....
שו"ת מנחת שלמה חלק א סימן י
ואי אפשר לחדש מעצמנו שיש בהכנסת הזרם משום איסור "מוליד", ועכ"פ איסור תורה ודאי ליתא,
שו"ת מנחת שלמה חלק א סימן י
אולם בעיקר הדבר נראה לפי עניות דעתי שאין איסור להפעיל הזרם בשבת אלא מחמת התוצאה שנעשה ע"י החשמל כמו בישול והדלקה וכדומה, שמתיחס אליו ונחשב כאילו הוא מבשל או מדליק בידים, משא"כ בנידון שלנו שכל התוצאה מהפעלת הזרם הוא רק שהגז מתרסס ומתאדה ומקרר, אין אני יודע איזה איסור יש בדבר זה...
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach (Responsa Minchas Shlomo vol. 1, §9:3:6-7)
(Regarding the Gemara in Beitzah (23a) that one may press a piece of aromatic wood between his fingers and smell it, as there is already an aroma, and one is only increasing it. Meaning that if there was no scent, this would also appear like a new entity. As opposed to an item where the current is created and stops 100x a day, on what grounds can we say that it appears like a new entity?) As this is the case, the magnetism and fluctuations in the current, and the noise, none of it is new at all, since this is all done with items that are prepared and designated to function in this way...similarly, for molid if it is designed to constantly produce, and to again produce the very same thing that was already produced before, and this is its constant regular function, it would seem that it is not possible to consider it prohibited because of molid.
In my opinion, in such a case, where no flame is lit or extinguished, rather the circuit of the telephone is completed and the current [goes through it], there is no reason to forbid it on Shabbos and Yom Yov, not because of makeh bepatish and not because of molid. (However, I think that it is possible that most people are not knowledgeable about such distinctions, and will make a mistake and say that it is permitted to light or turn off electricity on Shabbos, and therefore even in our regard, we should not permit this except for a case of great need. Along these lines, we find in the Sheilas Yaavetz, who reasons that it is permitted to wind a watch on Shabbos, as it is similar to opening and closing a lock, which is permitted. Even so, he concludes to be stringent in practice, because it appears to people as if one is making the item functional, all the more so here).
However, what can I do? For the elder has already ruled, the genius, our master and teacher, Rabbi Yitzchak Schmelkes z"l, in Responsa Beis Yitzchak (Y"D 2:31, in the addendum) on the matter of the telephone... that it is forbidden [because of molid] to make an electrical connection on Shabbos. end quote. And the matter needs a decisive ruling.
However, even if it were to be prohibited because of molid, it would be permitted to increase the volume which entails increasing the flow of the current, there is no reason to be concerned about the prohibition of molid, as they say in the Gemara in Beitzah (23a) that one may press a piece of aromatic wood between his fingers and smell it, as there is already an aroma, and one is only increasing it, so too here.
[Responsa §10:2:3] It seems to me that in the matter itself there is no prohibition to activate an electric current on Shabbos, depending on the result that is brought about by the electricity, like cooking, igniting a flame, and the like, which are attributed to the person, and it is considered as if you cooked or ignited the flame with your own hands, as opposed to our case [the motor of the refrigerator] the only result from the the activation of the current is the gas diffuses, evaporates, and cools, I don't know what prohibition there is in such a thing...
5) יביע-אומר ח"א או"ח סי' יט
דברתי בזה עם ידידי הרב הגאון המפורסם כמהר"ר שלמה זלמן אוירבך, ובבקיאותו הרבה בענינים אלו הודיעני באופן ברור...שאין הדיבור והבל הפה מעוררים זיקי אש וניצוצי אור חשמלי, רק הגברת הזרם שאין בו שום חשש של הבערה וכבוי, וכל דברי המומחים בזה הוא רק על הגברת הזרם החשמלי, אבל אין האור מוסיף ומתמעט כלל, והזרם עצמו אינו אש, וממילא אין חשש בדיבור הטלפון לכלום רק מצד הגבהת השפופרת). כמו כן הרם-קול אין בו חשש מצד זה כלל. מתוך זה יש ללמוד אודות אנשים שכבדה אזנם משמוע, ומניחים באזנם מכונה חשמלית הקולטת את הדיבור ועי"ז שומעים, לפי האמור יש להתיר אם מכינים אותה מע"ש, שאין לחוש בהגברת הזרם לכלום.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Responsa Yabia Omer, vol. 1 O"C §19)
I have conversed on this matter with my dear friend, the renowned genius, our teacher the master, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach, and with his great expertise in these matters he clearly informed me...that the speech and breath don't case any small flames or electrical sparks, only an increase in the current that does not have any concern of havara (igniting a fire) or kibui (extinguishing a fire), and the explanations of the scientific experts on this are that there is only an increase in the electrical current, but the [electric] lighting is not increased or minimized at all, and the current is not fire...due to this we can learn regarding people who are hard of hearing, and they have in their ears an electric device which transmits the sounds and that is how they hear...according to this we can permit if it is set up from before Shabbat, as there is no concern whatsoever in increasing the current. And my dear friend Rabbi S"Z Aurbach shlit"a concurred with me, and he ruled this way in practice.
[In vol. 7:36, Rabbi Yosef permits if one explicitly makes a condition while setting the lights from before Shabbat on a timer, that once the lights are already turned off, one can press a button so they not turn on again.]
7) שו"ת שבט הלוי חלק ט סימן סח (1993)
…בענין עין אלקטרי בכלל, אעפ"י שכתבתי בעניי בכמה מקומות יסוד מלאכה דאורייתא ע"י ב' דברים דהיינו מלאכת מחשבת, פעולה ומחשבה אבל מה שאדם הולך כדרכו ברחוב ואינו עושה שום מעשה מלאכה ותוספת פעולה ועי"ז נדלק באיזה בית אור האלקטרי, אין זה בגדר מלאכה דאורייתא ואינו דומה למלאכת המשכן, אלא דאם הוא מכוין לכך ורצונו בזה בודאי עכ"פ אסור מדרבנן, אבל אם אין רצונו בזה כלל גרע אפילו מאיסור פסיק רישיה בדרבנן ... דיש מלאכות דאם אין מכוין להדיא אינו בגדר מלאכה כלל.
שו"ת שבט הלוי חלק ט סימן סט
אבל לא כן כשאדם אינו עושה כלום ממש והולך לדרכו לפי תומו ואינו מוסיף אף תנועה אחת למען מלאכה אף שבגרמתו נדלק אור או דבר כיו"ב בזה פשיטא שכל זמן שאינו חושב ממש ללכת למען הדליק וכיו"ב שאין אנו מצרפים הליכתו הרגילה להתוצאה הנ"ל, ואין כאן פעולה של מלאכה, ודבר זה בכלל מש"כ הפוסקים כעין זה לענין מלאכת מכה בפטיש דישנם פרטים דכל זמן שאין מכוונים בפי' אינו בגדר אינו מתכוין אלא שאינו בגדר מלאכה כלל כמבואר בהה"מ פי"ב מהל' שבת ה"ב ובמג"א סי' שי"ח ס"ק ל"ו, ודידן ק"ו משם ומובן דאין זה דומה לנדון השכיח היום שדלתות בית נפתחות ע"י עין אלקטרי ע"י הנכנס לתוכו דבזה ודאי איכפת לי' בתוצאה של כניסתו ואסור, משא"כ העובר ברחוב גרידא בלי שום ניחותא הנ"ל.
היותי איש עמוס אין פנאי להאריך עוד, וגם אין פנאי לוכוחים הלוך וחזור.
Rabbi Shmuel Wosner (Responsa Shevet HaLevi 9:68, 69)
In general, regarding an electric camera, even though I have written in my deficiency in many places that the fundamental concept of a melacha on a torah-level is based on two factors, i.e. that make something a meleches machsheves, the action and the intention, but just a person walking on the street who is not doing any action that could be defined as a malacha or even any extra action, and as a result an electric light turns on that is attached to some house, is not even in the category of a torah-malacha and is not similar to malacha of the mishkan, rather if that was his intention by doing so and he desired the light, certainly that would be rabbinically prohibited, but if that is not his desire at all it is even less [considerable] than a rabbinic prohibition that is accomplished as a byproduct [pesik reisha]...as there are malachos that if they occur as an indirect and unintentional byproduct is not in the category of a malacha at all.
[§69] ...this is not the case where a person is literally not doing anything and is simply walking on his way and does not add even one movement for the sake of a malacha, even though it is caused by him that a light will be turned on or the like, it is obvious that as long as one is not actually thinking to walk there in order that it should turn on or the like, we don't combine his regular walking with one of the aforementioned consequences. There is not even an action of melacha. This is included in the ruling of the poskim along these lines for the melacha of makeh bepatish, that there are situations where as long as one is not specifically intending for this result, this is not categorized as if one did [a melacha] without intent for it, rather it is not in the category of a melacha at all, as is clear from Maggid Mishna (Shabbos ch. 12:2) and Magen Avraham 318:36. Our case is an a fortiori from there. It is understood that this is not similar to the common situation nowadays, of automatic doors that open due to a sensor by one who enters into it, that clearly is what one desires as a consequence of entering there and is prohibited, as opposed to one who is just walking in the street without any such expressed desire.
We have clarified earlier that closing an electric circuit has a concern to be a melacha...however, it would seem that this only applies to closing a circuit that has an apparent result that is apparent to one's sight or the other senses of a person; and this would apply to the various electronic devices that a person acts through for his needs and benefit. However, it is extremely common that a person will act through various electronic systems unwittingly and will cause electrical fluctuations whose purpose and results are not apparent or needed by us, such that we don't perceive any benefit in these fluctuations. Regarding all these, it seems in my humble opinion, that there is no hint of a melacha and there is not any maleches machsehves. I will demonstrate what I mean by way of presenting different halachic questions that I have been asked:
(1) Modern hearing aids... (2) Monitoring devices...that monitor someone's vitals, which change based on the breathing, movement, and effort of the one who is sick...as this causes changes on the screen of the device. (3) Electronic Cuffs...that are used for people who are on house arrest, which sends a signal to the police when a person goes out of a certain range, as might be occasionally allowed based on the terms of their house arrest...in the more advanced devices there is even G.P.S which sends a signal every moment...and as of late, such devices have been used for elderly people who have Alzheimer's or children with autism...(4) Oxygen mask for improving sleep...these devices are constantly adjusting to the slightest fluctuations in a person's breathing and movement which influences the oxygen...some of which have a screen that shows all these changes, which for this individual is only a benefit to see that it is actually working properly, which was turned on prior to Shabbos, and won't need to be turned on and off on Shabbos...(5) Sensors for Thermostats & Motion...many hotels all over the world have set up that when a person enters the room the light turns on and turn off about 15 minutes after a person leaves. Shabbos observant Jews have the custom that when they stay in such hotels over Shabbos will only enter a room after a work has entered and triggered the light. But they are often unaware that the sensors register their presence constantly and adjust or keep the lights and air-conditioner etc. running accordingly, such that when no motion is detected it sends a signal and consequently the lights turn off after a period of time (usually 15 minutes)...(6) Cell phones that doctors need to keep for when they are on call [note: at home, not in the hospital]...
As the technology advances every day there will be more and more devices that operate in these ways. What needs to be clarified is when a person without intent causes changes in the electrical current and electronic impressions that involve closing minute circuits that are imperceptible to the person, and in a hundredth of a second the signals change constantly, are they even in the category of a melacha?
It seems in my humble opinion, that it is not in the category of a melacha vis Shabbos, either because it does not fit the definition of a melacha at all, or there is not any maleches machsehves...
Whether due to molid, it is clear that only when a new entity is created that is perceptible to the senses and the one wants it to occur, such that a person could experience it, benefit from it, and has a purpose for it...but these electronic fluctuations that do not have a significant outcome that is apparent to the senses, such that the functioning of the device simply continues as if by itself, this is not in the category of molid....
Of course, anyone who can eschew the use of such devices and systems that is "in vogue," and to flee from [the possibility of] transgression, fortunate is their lot.
Rabbi Mordechai Lebhar (https://baishavaad.org/alexa-may-i-speak-on-shabbos/) points out that even according to the stringent opinion about hearing aids, they are willing to be lenient if a person clearly does not desire to be recorded (e.g. they are speaking to someone else in the presence of someone wearing hearing aids), as the consequence can't be considered attributable at all to the speaker, and the consequence itself is insubstantial, which would make it not a maleches machsheves.
Rabbi Yisroel Rosen (head of Machon Tzomet, Techumin, vol. 15 pg. 371) suggests, based on a few sources, that perhaps the sound or breath of a person can only be defined as an action attributable to them if there is another physical action that accompanies it. Therefore, speaking in a room where there happens to be a device recording would not be considered an action at all.