(2008/5769)
In our previous essay we presented the accepted view that turning on an electric appliance that heats metal until it glows constitutes a Torah level prohibition of Havarah (burning). This week we turn our attention to electric appliances where metal is not heated to a glow, such as a fluorescent bulb. Poskim (Halachic authorities) and the Jewish People have accepted that turning on such appliances is strictly prohibited on Shabbat and Yom Tov. However, it has been challenging to determine precisely why it is prohibited. In this essay we shall survey six approaches as to why it is prohibited and seek to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it constitutes a Torah level prohibition or rabbinic prohibition. We shall frequently refer to the writings of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, one of the greatest Halachic authorities of the twentieth century (1910-1995), who lived through the introduction of electric appliances into Eretz Yisrael and devoted much attention to mastering both the science and Halachic implications of these new phenomena.
Approach #1 – Molid
Among the first suggestions as to the basis for prohibiting such appliances was Rav Yitzchak Schmelkes’ (Teshuvot Beit Yitzchak 2:31 in the addenda) assertion that creating a functioning electric appliance is analogous to the rabbinic prohibition to create a new fragrance in one’s clothes on Shabbat and Yom Tov, known as Molid Reicha (Beitzah 23a). The Teshuvot Beit Yitzchak argues that Molid Zerem (powering an appliance with an electric current) is analogous to Molid Reicha and thus powering an appliance with electric current constitutes a rabbinic level prohibition.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1: pp.73-74) questions Rav Schmelkes’ analogy. He notes that one intends the scent to remain in the clothes and the clothing is not made to have scents added and removed. Electric appliances, on the other hand, are made to be turned on and off. Moreover, Rav Auerbach notes that Chazal did not forbid the creation of anything new. For example, they never forbade making juice from fruits that are not normally squeezed for its juice. Thus, one cannot expand the prohibition of Molid Reiach to Molid or to anything else not explicitly prohibited by Chazal since there is no broad categorical prohibition to create something new on Shabbat and Yom Tov.
Approach #2 – Boneh
The second major approach to prohibit powering electric appliances without a heated element was articulated by the Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 50:9 and in letters to Rav Auerbach printed in Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1: pp. 92-94). He rules that completing an electric circuit most likely constitutes a Torah level prohibition of Boneh (building) and opening a circuit is an act of Soteir (destroying). He argues that completing a circuit is analogous to assembling an appliance consisting of many parts (see Shabbat 57a and Shulchan Aruch O. C. 313:6). He adds that when one completes a circuit he has brought the appliance “from death to life,” which the Chazon Ish asserts constitutes an act of Boneh.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:11) also questions these assertions of the Chazon Ish. His primary argument is that an act which is intended to be done and undone on a regular basis is not defined as Boneh. Rav Shlomo Zalman sees opening and closing an electric circuit as analogous to opening and closing a door which is not Boneh and is undoubtedly permissible on Shabbat (see Mishnah Berurah 313:45). Rav Shlomo Zalman also questions the assertion that bringing something to life constitutes an act of Boneh. He notes that planting a shoot in the earth or grafting a tree is forbidden on Shabbat as planting but never as Boneh, even though doing so transforms the shoot from death to life.
Approach #3 – Makeh BePatish
The Chazon Ish (ad. loc.) also asserts that completing an electric circuit constitutes an act of Makeh BePatish. This literally means the “[final] blow of a hammer” and refers to finishing a product and making it useful (Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 23:4). Just as the final blow transforms a useless item into a functional product so too one who powers an appliance with electric power renders a useless article into something useful. The Chazon Ish cites as a precedent the ruling of the Chayei Adam (44:19) who forbids winding a watch on Shabbat as a Torah level prohibition of Makeh BePatish.
Rav Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo pp. 69-73 and 101-102) again questions the Chazon Ish. He argues “it is very reasonable to say that something that is done one hundred times a day is impossible to classify as Makeh BePatish.” He also writes that he is inclined to believe that “Makeh BePatish applies specifically when an item is missing something significant that craftsmen generally perform and [afterwards] remains this way permanently.” Since, reasons Rav Shlomo Zalman, completing an electric circuit is a simple process that anyone can perform and is performed constantly it cannot be classified as Makeh BePatish.
In addition, the Encyclopedia Talmudit (18:166) notes that of all the great authorities who preceded the Chazon Ish in discussing turning on electricity on Shabbat never even raise the possibility of completing an electric circuit constituting an act of Boneh or Makeh BePatish. These authorities include Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein (the author of the Aruch HaShulchan who addressed issues of electricity in an essay published in the Torah journal Beit Vaad LaChachamim), Rav Yitzchak Schmelkes (Teshuvot Beit Yitzchak ad. loc.), Rav David Zvi Hoffman (Teshuvot Melamed Lehoil 1:49), and Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky (Teshuvot Achiezer 3:60). Indeed, in Rav Moshe Feinstein’s writings addressing the prohibition of turning on electricity on Shabbat he never presents the Chazon Ish’s approach (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:50, 3:42, 4:84 and 4:85). These Poskim seem not to accept the assertion of the Chazon Ish that completing a circuit constitutes an act of Boneh and Makeh BePatish.
Approach #4 – Sparks
Both Rav David Zvi Hoffman and the Chazon Ish note that it is prohibited to complete circuits due to the sparks that are created when one completes a circuit. They argue that the sparks generated when completing an electric circuit fall into the rabbinic prohibition to create sparks from wood or stones (Mishnah Beitzah 4:7).
Rav Shlomo Zalman (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1: pp. 86-87) strongly questions this assumption. He notes that not only does one not intend to create these sparks, but also one does not want them at all since they wear out the points of contact in a circuit. He also argues that this is considered an unusual manner (KeLeAchar Yad) to create sparks since one never completes a circuit with the intention of creating sparks. Accordingly, Rav Auerbach argues that there should be no Halachic problem associated with the creation of such sparks.
He draws an analogy to a ruling of the Dagul MeiRevavah (O.C. 340:3) where he permits cutting a cake with letters written on it. This permission is based on the combination of the fact that erasing when not done for the purpose of writing is only a rabbinic prohibition, he has no intention of erasing the letters, it is a destructive act (Mekalkeil), and this is a KeLeAchar Yad manner of erasing. Accordingly, since the creation of sparks in general is only a rabbinic prohibition, and one does not intend to create sparks when completing an electric circuit, it is an unusual manner to create sparks, and it damages the circuit, the creation of sparks when completing an electric circuit does not constitute a prohibited act on Shabbat.
We should note, however, that Rama (ad. loc.) does prohibit breaking a cake with letters on it. Although the Shaarei Teshuvah (340:1) fully accepts the ruling of the Dagul MeiRevavah and the Aruch HaShulchan (O.C. 340:23) essentially supports it, the Mishnah Berurah (340:16) does not fully accept this lenient ruling. Indeed, common practice is to avoid cutting the letters on a cake on Shabbat in harmony with the ruling of Rama.
On the other hand, the fact that Halachah attaches no significance to something that is not visible to the “naked eye” (see Aruch HaShulchan Yoreh Deah 84:36 and Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Y.D. 3:120:5) is another consideration to discount these sparks. The Encyclopedia Talmudit (18:734) states that turning on appliances that operate on a relatively low voltage does not make visible sparks. Moreover, the production of sparks depends to a great extent on humidity. Thus, since it is not inevitable (Pesik Reisha) that these sparks will be produced, it remains an unintended action (Davar ShEino Mitkavein), which is permitted on Shabbat.
Approach #5 – Increased Fuel Consumption
Some have suggested that it is forbidden to complete an electric circuit on Shabbat since it causes increased fuel consumption in the power station. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 1:23 footnote 137) dismisses this concern for two reasons. The connection between one’s action and its impact in the power plant is remote and is classified as G’rama (indirect action). Moreover, in the majority of situations (Rove) one’s actions do not have impact on the fuel consumption in the power station.
Approach #6 – Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach
Rav Auerbach concludes (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:pp.74, 84, and 95) that completing an electric circuit and creating a flow of electrons is essentially no different than turning on a faucet and creating a flow of water. He believes that the only technical prohibitions potentially associated with electricity are the actions caused by electricity such as cooking or burning (in an incandescent bulb). Nonetheless, Rav Auerbach rules that it is forbidden to turn on an appliance even if no metal is heated until it glows, since Rav Schmelkes has already ruled on this matter (Kevar Horeh Zaken) and it has been accepted among the Jewish People. Moreover, since people will become confused between electricity that involves a heated filament and ones that do not, it is forbidden to turn on electric appliances even if no metal is heated until it glows.
Conclusion
In practice, it is undoubtedly forbidden to complete electric circuits on Shabbat and Yom Tov. The only question that remains is if it constitutes a Torah prohibition following the ruling of the Chazon Ish or rabbinic prohibition in accordance with the view of the Beit Yitzchak. A variety of Poskim have stated that the accepted view is that of the Beit Yitzchak. These authorities include Rav Yehuda Amital (personal communication), Rav David Cohen of Brooklyn (personal communication), Rav Moshe Heinemann (in a lecture to the Council of Young Israel Rabbis), Rav Shlomo Levy (personal communication), and Rav Hershel Schachter (in a lecture to the Rabbinical Council of America). This ruling has many ramifications for a wide variety of situations such as Amirah LeNachri (instructing a Nachri to perform forbidden labor on Shabbat), needs of the sick (Tzorchei Choleh), and Pesik Reisha DeLo Nicha Lei (an intended but inevitable act from which one derives no benefit) where significant distinctions are made between Torah level and rabbinic prohibitions.
Next week we shall discuss the permissibility of opening a refrigerator door on Shabbat when its motor is not running.