Why electricity is allowed on Shabat

I just wanted to mention why electricity is allowed on Shabat. It is not fire which is an oxidation process. [Electricity is  a flow of electrons.] And it is not building, nor fixing a vessel. It is simply turning on a light. That is not the same thing as fixing a light.
[What the fixation of the religious is about this I have no idea. It seems that they have to defend the idea turning on a light is forbidden at all cost with no support from the Gemara or Rishonim. If only they would have the same fixation about things that the Gemara actually does say!

[ I wrote  long blog on this a long time ago in more detail. I had heard about the Chazon Ish but did not have the chance to look at his book on this issue until I got back to the Mir in NY and there looked at it. I was impressed, but then talked with Rav Nelkenbaum about it and he said  that the Chazon Ish was simply not right. I had no idea what he meant at first but then I realized what that  must have meant. That is : you have to squeeze the Chazon Ish into the Gemara. It does not come out of the Gemara itself. You have to make up your own idea why electricity must be forbidden and then try to fit it into the Gemara.]

Later someone showed to me the book of the disciple of the Chazon Ish [Rav Aurbach] that also says electricity is not building nor fixing a vessel.


The main reason why the religious are fixated about this is it makes them feel superior to others while also helping to divert attention from things that the Torah actually does require.

In any case the arguments that forbid electricity on Shabat or cooking with electricity are amazingly flimsy and concocted out of thin air.

I just wanted to jot down a few ideas about electricity on Shabat--not a formal essay that I would have liked to have done.
Mainly the issue really boils down the the Gemara in Shabat chapter 3 about cooking with תולדות חמה or in חמי טבריה. [Heat generated by some derivative of solar energy, not fire]. The relevant sources are the Chazon Ish, and  the book of one of his disciples that disagreed with the Chazon Ish, and the Gemaras from where the Chazon Ish derives his law from. They are the gemaras about putting a bed or a candelabra that are made out of parts together. I was back at the Mir in NY for a sort time and looked at the Chazon Ish and was impressed. I then asked Rav Nelkenbaum about it and he said an אדם גדול told him the essay of the Chazon Ish on this subject is simply and plainly wrong.

That is the sum total of the relevant information I have about this subject. The only thing I might add is the argument between the Rambam and Raavad about a vessel that needs to be put together to be operative in laws of טומאה וטהרה but after thinking that over I did not think it was relevant. In any case the arguments that forbid electricity on Shabat or cooking with electricity are amazingly flimsy and concocted out of  thin air. 
As they say in Israel "If you want to be frum, (extra strict) then do it on your own חשבון (expense). Do not force it down the throats of others."

I was learning Shabat

I was learning Shabat while engaged to my future wife and spent that year learning Shabat and then Aruvin during my first year of marriage and then Pesachim. While a lot of my learning Shabat was done with Tospot and the Maharsha and Pnei Yehoshua, still some parts I did with a learning partner that wanted to concentrate on Halacha so we did the Gemara, Rashi, and some Tosphot and then the Rosh and Rif and Shiltei Giborim on the Rif and the Tur and Beit Yoseph. When it comes to the laws of Shabat, that is about the only way I have ever heard that gives a clear understanding of the material. 

I am not saying I liked that last approach. It as the approach my learning partner insisted on. But I admit when it comes to Halacha that the only way to understand Halacah is by doing the Gemara with the Tur Beit Yoseph. But if it had been up to me, I would have rather just done the Maharsha,  Pnei Yehoshua and Tosphot. On my own I not only learned the Maharsha, but the book Maharsha HeAroch which combined five commentaries on the Maharsha.

I can not say which approach is better. When I was starting out learning, I combined both approaches. But by the time I got to the Mir, I was pretty set on "Lumdus," = learning in depth  with intense analysis of Tosphot.  Though I was ignorant, still the deeper levels of the Gemara were what interested me. But I guess what happened was at the Mir, the group that was doing  Shabat that year were "halacha oriented" so I just went along with it.


To me "learning" still just means Gemara, Rashi, Tosphot, Maharsha, and Maharam from Lublin. Everything else is extra credit.

[As for the actual laws of Shabat, I am lenient about things like the public domain needing 600,000 as Rashi and Tosphot both say.  Also electricity and writing in English as per the Rema that in Hebrew in the actual prohibition.  Muktze also according the the later Mishna in chapter Beit Shamai where the Gemara turns the mishna around, so the school that allowed mutzah was Beit Hillel. I am not going into these subjects here, but just stating in what areas I am lenient. It is OK to be more strict,-- as long as being strict does not cause one to do less of what he should in obligations between man and his fellow man.

One important point is that there is little reason to be strict unless one knows he or she is taking the strict opinion. But often people think the more strict opinion is the only opinion.  Being overly religious is not a substitute for being a decent human being.] 

I wanted to mention that electricity on Shabat I dealt with along time ago in some essay. It is true that Reb Chaim Ozer did say it is forbidden when it came out. But he could not have known what it is. The electron was only discovered  later. So it was a simple case of people saying something is forbidden when they had no idea of what it was that they were talking about.

 Every person should have some ideas about his own limits. Forbidding electricity before anyone even knew what an electron is [or that it even existed] is a good example of having an uninformed opinion.
That is not the only example, but it is a good one.

Having fear of God, learning and keeping Torah is a good idea. But you can't get there by making up prohibitions. If you want fear of God you have to start out accepting what the Torah says, not trying to fit it into what some people want it to say.

Talmud Bava Metzia, pg 104

[I am only here presenting my own ideas and those of my learning partner. I do not claim these books to be the best in "Lumdus" that are around. In my opinion, the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach deserves first place in terms of depth of thought.]
The Ideas in Bava Metzia needs a correction "possibility"אפשרות in Hebrew is feminine.  Thus it takes a feminine verb. [You can see this all the time in Tenach where such nouns are considered feminine. But there is an exception I think in Job
[for example in the beginning of the prayer of Havakuk chapter 3.] פלצות in the prayer of חבקוק is treated as feminine.[While on grammar, I think בורא נפשות רבות  are feminine. That it should be וחסרונן על כל מה שברא להחיות בהן נפש כל חי, ברוך אתה ה' חי העולמים. That is anyway what I do.]
I also noticed at page 104 the ideas need some clarifications. I was trying to present two ideas. One from my learning partner about the Rambam. And one from me about Rav Papa and how my idea can help understand the Rambam. But I don't think I presented these ideas clearly.






I would add a few other laws here and there (like electricity on Shabat), but if I have nothing new to say there does not seem to be any purpose. I am generally lenient when it comes to halaka. If there is a posek {Rishon} that is enough for me.. But not achronim. That is in any argument between any rishonim I always decide to be lenient.  And all the more so I pay no attention to any of the crazy added restrictions of the the religious world today which are all pure insanity and have nothing to do with Torah.

But  how can I attack what has no halakic basis (electricity on Shabat is a good example)? If people want to make up restrictions, because it makes them feel holy, what can I do?

Being extra strict I began to notice has no connection with being a normal decent human being. The extra strict types of people I think do not understand the Torah requires both obligations between man and his fellow man and also between man and God.

I also suggest that this is the exact reason why all the great Lithuanian yeshivas  like the Mir learned in a basic seven year cycle the tractates that had to deal with obligations between man and his fellow man {נשים נזיקין} and they learned Musar also [normative ethics].
On BM page 104
I was looking over what I wrote about cleanliness  and leaning. I think at least at the end of that essay I need to explain that when I was putting the opinion of the Ri and Rav Shimshon ben Avraham together I was intending to explain Rashi. That is leaning in the case of a strong  or weak tree with not make the person that is leaned on by the Zav to be unclean. Only if the Zav moves him as in the case of the weak tree.

[I should mention that in Elul usually some other tractates than the major ones are studied. For example in my first Elul period in Shar Yashuv in NY we learned Rosh HaShanah about the way to blow the Shophar. [That is the last page of Rosh Hashana].]



Another important issue in Bava Metzia is on page 100A with the second tosphot and the argument between the Rashbam and Tosphot. The issue is that in Tosphot they are going with the idea found in in Nida 2b) that a "חזקה" steady state of now (חזקה דהשתא) can only defeat a previous steady state חזקה מעיקרא if combined with some other חזקה. That is not how Tosphot understands the gemara in Nida itself on the page over there. But it might very well be in fact how the Rashbam understands this because of his opinion on a divorce document that has witnesses but no time written in it. This last subject is the object of a debate between Tosphot, the Rambam, and the Rashbam. See Rav Shach's Avi Ezri where he goes into this in the Rambam Laws of Gittin chapter 1.
Now you might say in Bava Metzia Tosphot intends his answer to be two separate answers. [I do not have a Bava Metzia to be able to look this up but I hope someday that God will grant to me a Bava Metzia so I can look more carefully in Tosphot to see what he means.]
In any case , just to introduce you to the topic let me mention the basic issue. Rambam Laws of Divorce ch 1:25 says if there are witnesses on the document, it needs to have the  date. The Ramban (Nachmanides) says it always needs the date. The Rashbam says even if it has witnesses, it does not need the date.
The issue is: why is there a date on the document? Because of the daughter of his sister that is brought to court for having sex with another man while being married. Thus, we require every divorce to have the time in it- so he does not write a document after the act with a dater before the act and thus try to show she was not married at the time. But then the question from tractate Nida comes up. She is not married now, so the state now (חזקה דהשתא) goes backwards. In Nida, the Gemara says the state now only can work backwards if it has something else helping it. At any rate, we can see what the Rashbam was thinking -the case of the divorce is the same as the mikve. There is a state of the mikve or the woman  now, but the state of being first חזקה מעיקרא defeats the later state (חזקה דהשתא) unless the later state has some help. Therefore the document is valid, and it is as if it has a time written onto it which is right now. So at least the Rashbam is clear.

I also had to take out one idea on Bava Metzia page 104 that I heard from someone. But now it looks that it really made no sense, so I deleted it.
.

Shabat 68b 69 a.
Rabbi Yochanan says if one forgets a work or it punishment that is called accidental. Reish Lakish said knowing it is forbidden but forgetting the punishment is called on purpose. Rather accidental is only when he forgot the work and its punishment.



The Mishna says 39 types of work are forbidden and enumerates them. Why tell the number? We can all count. To tell us if he does all 39 in one span of forgetting, he brings 39 sin offerings. That is OK to Rabbi Yochanan. but what about to Reish Lakish. He is gong like Rabbi Akiva in terms of boundries.




Maimonides. Laws of accidental sacrifices 7. Halacha 3. He says the law is like Rabbi Yochanan that forgetting a kind of work on Shabat or its punishment counts as accidental. That is he can bring a sin offering. If he forgets all 39 types of work then he brings 39 sin offerings. The son of the Rambam was asked in what way does he then remember Shabat? [He is called Rabbi Avraham by mistake. He is Rav Avraham. Neither he nor his father has semicha.  If someone would call me "doctor" that would not be a compliment. I have no Ph.D so why call me such a name? That last people to have semicha lived in the beginning of the time of the Talmud. That is why we call Rabbi Yochanan "Rabbi" and his student was Resih Lakish until Rabbi Yochanan gave him semicha and he was called Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. But after the middle of the time of the Talmud no one has the right to be called "rabbi" because no one has or can have semicha.]

He answered either his father meant he forgot all "or" as in this or that but not both. That is either he forgot all the punishment for all 39 but knows they are forbidden. Or he forgot that all 38 are forbidden and one he forgot the punishment but remembered it is forbidden.

To Reish Lakish the Talmud had the same problem but answered he remembered Shabat by the fact of the Shabat boundary is forbidden from the Torah to Rabbi Akiva.

Rav Elazar Menachem Shach said we could answer for the Rambam that he knows the 12 mile boundary is forbidden from the Torah.

My point here is this. Even if Rabbi Yochanan would hold by Rabbi Akiva about the 2000 yard boundary how would that help us? [Nor does 12 miles help either.] It could very well be that he does not consider knowledge of a boundary to be called knowing about Shabat when it comes to brings a sin offering?

Think about the arrow. To Reish Lakish knowing punishment is considered a lot but to R. Yochanan it is considered little. So something that is little to Reish Lakish to Rabbi Yochanan might considered nothing.


Appendix for the public-- 39 types of work are mainly things that go into making bread or planting crops. But there are a few extra like writing and carrying in a public domain. lighting a fire is one of them also but electric lights are not fire. Nor is cooking with electricity considered cooking. It has to be fire. You can see this in the end of chapter 3 of Shabat. Cooking with a magnifying glass is not cooking. תולדות החמה is not cooking. It has to be תולדות אש to be considered cooking. But driving a car uses fire. The spark plug does make fire in order to ignite the gas in the four parts engine. That is- the gasoline is made into a gas in one chamber. Then the spark plug makes a spark that ignites it and it expands and that is what drives the car.

____________________________________________________________________________



שבת סח: סט ע''א
רבי יוחנן says if one forgets a אב מלאכה or its עונש that is called שוגג. But ריש לקיש said knowing it is forbidden but forgetting the עונש is called on purpose. Rather accidental is only when he forgot the work and its עונש.



The משנה says ל''ט אבות מלאכות are forbidden and enumerates them. Why tell the number? We can all count. To tell us if he does all ל''ט in one העלמה, he brings ל''ט חטאות. That is OK to רבי יוחנן, but what about to ריש לקיש? He is going like רבי עקיבא in terms of תחומים.




רמב''ם. הלכות שגגות ז:ג. He says the law is like רבי יוחנן that forgetting a אב מלאכה on שבת or its punishment counts as שוגג. That is he can bring a חטאת. If he forgets all ל''ט types of work then he brings ל''ט חטאות. The son of the רמב''ם was asked, "In what way does he then remember Shabat?"

He answered either his father meant he forgot all מלאכות או עונשן as in this or that but not both. That is either he forgot all the punishment for all ל''ט but knows they are forbidden. Or he forgot that all ל''ח are forbidden and one he forgot the עונש but remembered it is אסורה.

To ריש לקיש the תלמוד had the same problem but answered he remembered שבת by the fact of the תחום שבת is forbidden from the תורה to רבי עקיבא.

רב אלעזר מנחם שך said we could answer for the רמב''ם that he knows the י''ב מיל boundary is forbidden from the Torah.

My point here is this. Even if רבי יוחנן would hold by רבי עקיבא about the אלפיים yard boundary how would that help us? It could very well be that he does not consider knowledge of a boundary to be called knowing about שבת when it comes to brings a חטאת?

Think about the arrow. To ריש לקיש knowing העונש is considered a lot but to רבי יוחנן it is considered little. So something that is ידיעה קטנה to ריש לקיש to רבי יוחנן might considered כלום.

_______________________________________________________________________

 שבת סח: סט ע''א רבי יוחנן אומר שאם אחד שכח אב מלאכה או עונשה שזה נקרא שוגג. אבל ריש לקיש אמר כשבן אדם יודע  שזה אסור, אבל שוכח את העונש שזה נקרא על מזיד. לא נקרא שוגג רק כאשר הוא שכח את העבודה ועונשה. המשנה אומרת ל''ט אבות מלאכות אסורות ומונה אותם. למה לומר את המספר? כולנו יכולים לספור. לומר לנו אם הוא עושה את כל ל''ט בהעלמה אחת, הוא מביא ל''ט חטאות. זה בסדר לרבי יוחנן, אבל מה לגבי לריש לקיש? הוא הולך כמו רבי עקיבא  בתחום שבת.
רמב''ם, הלכות שגגות ז: ג. לדבריו, החוק הוא כמו רבי יוחנן. היינו ששוכח אב מלאכה בשבת או העונש שלה נחשב שוגג. כלומר הוא יכול להביא חטאת. אם הוא שוכח את כל ל''ט סוגי עבודה  אז הוא מביא ל''ט חטאות. בנו של רמב''ם נשאל, באיזה אופן הוא זוכר אז שבת?

הוא ענה גם אביו אומר שהוא שכח את כל מלאכות או עונשן כמו זה או זה, אבל לא שניהם. זה או שהוא שכח את כל העונשים על כל ל''ט אבל יודע שהם אסורים. או שהוא שכח  של''ח אסורות ואחת שכח עונשה אבל נזכר שזה אסור. או נזכר בתולדות.

לריש לקיש התלמוד ענתה שהוא נזכר שבת על ידי העובדה שזכר שתחום שבת אסור מן התורה לרבי עקיבא. רב אלעזר מנחם שך אמר שאנחנו יכולים לענות לרמב''ם שהוא יודע  גבול י''ב מיל אסור מן התורה. הנקודה שלי כאן היא זו. גם אם רבי יוחנן יחזיק ידי רבי עקיבא על אלפיים או י''ב מיל, איך זה יעזור לנו? זה יכול מאוד להיות שהוא אינו רואה את הידע של גבול להיקרא ידיעה על שבת כשמדובר בהבאת חטאת? תחשוב על החץ. לריש לקיש ידיעת העונש נחשב הרבה אבל לרבי יוחנן זה נחשב קטן. אז משהו שהוא ידיעה קטנה לריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן יכול להיות שהוא נחשב לאפס.

Shabat. Work on Shabat that is not intended, but it must happen.

There is an argument about doing some kind of work on Shabat that is not intended but it must happen.  There are 39 type of work on Shabat that are not allowed, e.g. sewing, lighting a fire, building etc. Many of them have to do with types of things that would go into baking bread. But that would not apply to baking with electricity which is not fire.]

In any case The Ri [Rabbainu Isaac] holds when it is a work that must happen it is forbidden even if he does not want it. The Aruch says when he does not want it is it permitted. This comes up in Tosphot in Yoma page 34 [that is the biggest Tosphot I think I have seen in a long time]. Tosphot brings this argument in Shabat also. And Joseph Karo also brings it.
This subject is also R. Akiva Eiger's object of study in one of his long essays.

What I wanted to say today just before I have to run is this. I think the Aruch makes a lot of sense. Just think about it. We are going with R. Shimon that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור. Right?  So what is going on in דבר שאינו מתכווין? It is that he is doing something else that results in the work. And let's say the work must happen. Why would that be any worse that doing the actual work itself, but with a different intention from what the work is liable in? He could be digging a pit which is actual work but if he only needs the dirt then he is not liable! I would have to say the Aruch makes a lot of sense to me. [Incidentally R. Akiva Eigger also spends his entire long pamphlet on this topic defending the Aruch.]
I brought this up with my learning partner, and he said first of all he can't see any difference between  מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא.
And he also pointed out that the Ri is in fact saying something very sensible. That דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is forbidden by rabbinical law as a fence around the Torah. He is not claiming that it is forbidden from the Torah itself.
_______________________________________________________________________________
There is an argument about doing some kind of מלאכה on שבת that is not מתכווין but פסיק רישא.  There are ל''ט types of work on שבת that are not allowed, e.g. sewing, lighting a fire, building etc. Many of them have to do with types of things that would go into baking bread.

In any case  ר''י רבינו יצחק  holds when it is דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה. The ערוך says פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is  permitted.


 The ערוך makes a lot of sense. Just think about it. We are going with רבי שמעון that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור. Right?  So what is going on in דבר שאינו מתכווין? It is that he is doing something else that results in the מלאכה. And let's say the work must happen. Why would that be any worse that doing the actual work itself but with a different כוונה from what the מלאכה is liable in? He could be digging a pit which is actual מלאכה but if he only needs the dirt then he is not liable!


I brought this up with my learning partner and he said first of all he can't see any difference between  מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה and דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא.

And he also pointed out that the ר''י is in fact saying something very sensible. That דבר שאינו מתכווין שהוא פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is forbidden דרבנן as a fence around the Torah. He is not claiming that it is forbidden from the Torah itself.

Chaim Soloveitchik and Shabat.

I wanted to mention a point concerning Chaim Soloveitchik and Shabat.
His basic thesis is clear.
He considers piercing a boil and capturing a snake as being a work that is not intended (אינו מכווין) [and must happen and the doer does not want the result] (פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה). This answers the question on the Rambam that holds like Rabbi Yehuda that a work that is done not for its own sake as liable and yet permits piercing a boil. [That is put simply: Reb Chaim is saying the Rambam holds by the opinion of the Aruch ערוך.]

What I wanted to mention today is the fact that Reb Chaims brings the Talmud in Pesachim page 25. The most obvious reasons that Reb Chaim brings that Gemara [Talmud] are clear. If you are just skimming the Reb Chaim you can see he is trying to show a different place where the Rambam holds by the Aruch that a work not intended,  and is not pleasing to him but what must happen is permitted (פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה). You can also see how by this he is showing how the option open to the Rambam was not open to Tosphot. So in fact we do find that when Tosphot has to answer the same question on Shmuel that there is on the Rambam [because Shmuel and the Rambam hold the same concerning work on Shabat] that Tosphot is forced into a real unsatisfying answer.

But the deeper reason Reb Chaim brings that Gemara is to show an important point. That to the Rambam there is such a thing as pleasure that is not intended that must happen that becomes not pleasing when he intellectually does not want it. It is the idea of pleasure reaching him that is against his will that Reb Chaim is concentrating on. This shows that the will nullifies the pleasure. And this is why Reb Chaim mentions the fact that work on Shabat is different from other type of prohibitions. It is Melechet Machshevet (מלאכת מחשבת)-- it has to be thought. Because by this Reb Chaim is able to show that on Shabat even Rava would agree with Abyee.


When I was learning this with my learning partner, he noticed the Rambam at the beginning of laws of Shabat. That Rambam explains what the words "not intended" and "not needed for its own sake" mean. And that is the place that makes Reb Chaim's idea difficult. It seems to me that from what I remember that this was also the question of the Chazon Ish on Reb Chaim. So what I have done here is to answer the questions on Reb Chaim and by means of that to answer the questions on the Rambam.[I hope.] You have to see the edition of Reb Chaim with the comments of the Chazon Ish in the back. I think that once when I glance at it I noticed the Chazon Ish asking the same question as my learning partner on the particular Reb Chaim. I think I have gained some insight into Reb Chaim in this above essay.
[I don't have the Rambam or Reb Chaim here but it seems to me the major question that Reb Chaim was trying to answer on his thesis is that capturing a snake simply does not fit into the regular way the Rambam understands the meaning of not intended. What is not intended about putting the thing into a trap? So you have to answer my above given answer.]
______________________________________________________________________________


In any case what does Tosphot hold? Either that work not needed for its own sake and work not intended are completely independent, or that if intended it has to be for its own sake.(I.e not completely independent.) That is in the area of not intended it can for its on sake or not. I am not sure.

_________________________________________________________________________


Later on I read what  Rav  Shach wrote about this Rambam and he actually answers the Rambam much better than Reb Chaim. I forget what it was but take a look yourself. Mainly I think he was saying the same thing I said originally about that Rambam--certain kinds of work have intention as part of the definition. So צידת נחש is nothing. It is not even a דבר שאינו מתכווין. And the piercing of the boil is not כדרך הרופאים so it too is nothing.

In any case, this is no surprise to me. Rav Shach definitely surpassed Reb Chaim. If yeshivas would be smart they would all run to get the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach.


It seems every Shabat someone looks at this essay thinking I will say something about electricity. If it would be fire then it would be work done not for its own sake. We see in Kritut that fire for its own sake is to make coals. And so if electricity was fire it would be liable to the Rambam who says work done not for its own sake is liable.  But it is not fire so that is that. Anyway besides the Rambam all rishonim hold מלאכה שאנה צריכה לגופה פטורה
And besides this I do not believe in looking for new חומרות--restrictions that are not in the Torah..
The path of the Torah is to keep what it says, not make up new stuff. Being anti-Israel is not just common in the religious world but even raised to the level of the most important Mitzvah. I often have trouble distinguishing between the Ultra religious people from Nazis. This is just one of many examples of the infinite distance between the religious and the Torah. I should mention that the yeshiva of Ponovitch raises the flag of Israel on the Israel  Independence Day.

In terms of electricity I already wrote about it that it is not fire and it is not fixing a vessel nor building. It is not fixing a vessel nor building since there is a difference between closing a door on Shabat and fixing a door. That is so even though the door when not closed in useless. The whole trouble is not just in adding extra restrictions that are not from the Torah. The trouble is adding extra restrictions takes away attention from things that the Torah actually forbids and also from things that the Torah actually requires.

Electricity on Sabbath

This blog is mainly for philosophy but right now while it is on my mind I wanted to discuss an important Tosphot in the Talmud as it relates to the subject of electricity on Sabbath This is the Tosphot in Kritut 20b-second on the page. First I want to point out that today I glanced at the Reb Chaim Solovetich on this subject an he in fact says something about the Rambam that I was saying about Tosphot.
I said a simple idea.: according to the idea at the end of that Tophot you have an answer for the original question without having to turn the whole subject/sugia into an issue of work that is not done for its own sake. The idea is to say that the whole issue is a pesik reisha [inevitable event] that is not acceptable to him. The Aruch says that to R Shimon he is not liable. Now we can say that to R. Yehuda he is liable and so you have explained the sugia.
[and this fits like a glove into the sugia since in fact we know he does not what the coals to be burnt--it is clearly a not intended act.]




Reb Chaim simply says what I said and puts it into the Rambam. And gives a good reason why it should be so.

This is a point I have said already a few time son my other blog. But right now I wanted to mention an important reason why tosphot puts together the idea of unintended work along with a work not done for its own sake after he gives his idea that the own sugia is talking about work done not for its own sake.The reason is that he is trying to say that to R. Yehuda that not only is it a work done not for its own sake but also it is not intended and still he says he is liable--because it is a work done not for its own sake. And this explains exactly why in the next Braita that the Talmud brings that it only says it is a work done not for its own sake and does not mention that it is not intended --because it is intended and yet still R. Shimon says it is not liable. This is the usual way of the Gemara to show the stronger side of each opinion.

Now it is this next Braita in which he is stirring the wood to get warm but he is not trying to make coals that we see that if one turns on a light on Sabbath to have light but not to make a filament that it is a work done not for its own sake.--even if you accept the idea that this is a work of building. [What I mean is that this idea of turning on a light being building is already highly doubtful in my eyes.]


[Just for a bit of background. To the Rambam, to make a coal on Shabat is  work. We in fact see this in the Talmud itself in Kritut. This is in fact not related to the reason the Chazon Ish said lighting a light bulb is forbidden. But in either case it is a work not done for its own sake. This is a type of work made by people who have nothing better to do all day that to think of what they can forbid other Jews to do on Shabat ]

The question of an electric light on Shabat

The question of an electric light on Shabat.


While it does look clear that an electric light that produces heat would be forbidden by the Torah according to the Rambam, it is hard to see why building/ (בניין) would apply to electricity. (And the Rambam seems to be a minority opinion here. Besides that why is not then a glass you use to focus sun rays also forbidden. And we know it is not except derabanan.) We do find that putting together a bed or menorah in a way that it could not be taken apart except by an artisan would be forbidden because of tikun mana תיקון מנא, but it is hard to see why electricity would be like that. The way the Chazon Ish understood the idea (closing a circuit) can perhaps be squeezed into the the Gemara. But it is not general way that binyan בנין or tikun mana תיקון מנא were understood by the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch.
[The reason I always put binyan/building (בניין) and tikun mana/תיקון מנא fixing a vessel together is that the Gemara says they are the same work melacha except that one is for something attached to the ground and the other is not]
I heard from Rav Nelkenbaum (at Mir N.Y.) that he heard from a great man אדם גדול that the Chazon Ish does not actually fit into the Gemara. This might be true, but  I have not heard why.
To me it seems like the Chazon Ish went to great length to show how his idea of building/ binyan could be fit into the Gemara.---the bed and menorah are not possible to use until they are finished. The electric circuit is not finished until it is lit. In theory this seems to work.  The problem is: How does you understand electricity? Is it like water you pour from a tea pot? Or is it a part of the tea pot? I mean the teapot is useless until you pour water into it and then pour it out. Is now it forbidden to open the lid and pour out the tea?
But I admit that the Chazon Ish is an impressive book.

There are some interesting side topics here like a Rambam in laws of vessels  and the end of chapter 9 in Bava Metzia. But they don't change the law

I asked Reb Nelkenbaum to tell me the name of that "great man" but he refused to tell me. And I think he probably would not tell anyone else either because I think he was sworn to secrecy.
So if anyone has the time the only thing to do now is to open up that Chazon Ish and try to get to the bottom of this.
 I saw once that Rav Elizer Menachem Shach had a piece on this in his book the Avi Ezri. And that would be worthwhile looking at. I seem to remember his basing himself on the Rambam. This was about twenty years ago I glanced at it while at the Mirrer Yeshiva.  I think he was concentrating on the Rambam about any heat producing process in terms of making coals.

I think in the long run the reason I am thinking that electricity is OK is the Gemara at the end of chapter 3 in Shabat: about cooking stuff on hot pavement  (or perhaps with a magnifying glass) תולדות החמה. To me that seems to indicate that any heat producing process is  not the same thing as fire.
I think the Chazon Ish realized how absurd it is to think any heat producing process is fire. So he went in another direction-building בניין. And he was thinking that he could get a lot farther with building than he could with just fixing a vessel because building even less than an atom is still liableבנין בכל שהוא חייב . It is probably that distinction between building and fixing that the Chazon Ish is trying to use to get to his idea of forbidding electricity.

As far as what Rav Shach mentions in the Avi Ezri about coals-- clearly the Rambam that he brings there is going like Rabbi Yehudah that a מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is liable. But we don't follow this ruling. We go by the idea that מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה is not liable. [In any case the whole issue of coals is from fire, not תולדות החמה or any other kind of heat making process.]

So there it is. Maybe someone will come up with some other reason to forbid it. But the reasons that have been given are ridiculous. בורר might be the next suggestion. One is choosing the good electrons from the bad ones by means of a vessel. So it is like choosing the good from the bad with a vessel which is liable from the Torah. But if someone wants to use this idea it might take another few hundred years to show why it is not correct.

I should add that the idea of keeping the Torah strictly is a good idea. Even a great idea. But it is not a good idea to make up prohibitions out of thin air. It is better to keep what the Torah says without adding prohibitions or subtracting them. There is in fact a prohibition in the Torah not to add prohibitions. It is called "לא תוסיף" "Don't add."

Instead of making up prohibitions my suggestion is to be strict about keeping the Ten Commandments.

 אור החשמל ביום שבת. השאלה של אור חשמל ביום שבת. למרות שזה נראה כי אור החשמל שמייצר חום יהיה אסור מן התורה על פי רמב''ם, קשה לראות מדוע בניין יחול על חשמל. ואת  רמב''ם נראה כדעת מיעוט כאן. חוץ מזה,  זכוכית  שאתה משתמש בה למקד קרני השמש גם תהיה אסורה. ואנחנו יודעים שזה אסור רק דרבנן. אנחנו מוצאים להרכיב מיטה או מנורה בצורה כזו שהיא לא יכולה להיות מפורקת למעט ידי אומן ייאסר בגלל תיקון מנא, אבל זה קשה לראות מדוע חשמל יהיה ככה. האופן שבו החזון איש הבין את הרעיון, סגירת מעגל, יכול אולי להידחק בגמרא. אבל זה לא האופן הכללי  שבניין או תיקון מנא הובנו על ידי הראשונים. הסיבה ששמתי בניין ותיקון מנא (תיקון כלי) יחד היא כי הגמרא אומרת שהם זהים, הם אותה מלאכה, פרט לעובדה שהאחד הוא במשהו מחובר לאדמה והשני לא. לי נראה שהחזון איש הלך באריכות כדי להראות עד כמה הרעיון שלו של הבניין יכול להיות מתיאם לגמרא. המיטה והמנורה הם לא ניתנו להשתמש עד שהעבודה הסתיימה. המעגל החשמלי לא נגמר עד שמדליקים. בתיאוריה זה נראה נכון. הבעיה היא: איך אתה באמת מבין בו חשמל? האם זה כמו מים שמוזג מקנקן תה? או שזה חלק של הסיר של תה? כוונתי שהקנקן הוא חסר תועלת עד שאתה לשופך את התה מתוכו לכוס. האם עכשיו זה אסור לפתוח את המכסה לצוק את התה? ישנם כמה נושאים צדדים מעניין זה כמו רמב''ם בהלכות טומאת כלים ועוד בסוף פרק תשעה בבבא מציעא. אבל הם לא משנים את החוק. אני חושב כי חשמל הוא מותר בגלל הגמרא בסוף הפרק השלישי בשבת: על בישול דברים על מדרכות לוהטות, או אולי עם זכוכית מגדלת שהם תולדות החמה. לי זה נראה בבירור כי כל תהליך ייצור חום הוא לא אותו דבר כמו אש. אני חושב שהחזון איש הבין עד כמה אבסורדי זה לחשוב כל תהליך ייצור חום הוא אש. אז הוא הלך בכיוון אחר, בניית בניין. והוא חשב שהוא יכול לקבל יותר עם בניין ממה שהוא יכול עם תיקון כלי מכיוון שבנייה אפילו פחות מאטום הוא עדיין  בנין בכל שהוא שחייב. זה כנראה ההבחנה בין בנייה ותיקון מנא שהחזון איש מנסה להשתמש בה כדי להגיע למושג לאסור חשמל. ככל מה רב שך מזכיר גחלים ברמב''ם, ברור שהרמב''ם הולך כמו ר.יהודה כי מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה חייב. אבל אנחנו לא הולכים לפי פסיקה זו. הולכים לפי הדין מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה אינה חייבת. בכל מקרה את כל נושא גחלים הוא מאש, לא תולדות החמה או כל סוג אחר של תהליך קבלת חום

I would only pray in a Reform Temple or a Conservative one. Ethical Monotheism. The energy and teachings of the Sitra Ahra (Dark Side) got totally entwined with religious Judaism.

Reform Judaism is right about Ethical Monotheism. This is first of all true. [One of the major goals of Torah is objective personal ethics as you can see in the Ten Commandments.] Also it is what the Torah is about.  But Reform is wrong in ignoring the Oral Law and the efforts of the  Sages to understand Divine Law. Also-It is bourgeois. They have no Gra, or his disciple Haim from Voloshin, or Rav Isaac Luria. No juice. No taste. The batteries need charging.

Reform  ignores the most important aspect of Torah,- the holy numinous aspect.

There are a few people in the context of Torah who discovered and  revealed parts of the divine reality contained in Torah. They were the Ramban (Nachmanides) and Ari (Isaac Luria), the Gra, Israel Salanter,
Also "social justice" is an 1840's invention of two Catholic priests meant to replace noble obligation (Noblesse oblige). It is not the main idea of the Torah, nor the Prophets, nor the Writings.[, תורה נביאים כתובים]  Social justice is the opposite of justice. Social justice is steal from the rich. This is based on the idea that the rich must have somehow gotten rich in some non proper way even if there is no evidence for this. Justice means don't steal; not from the rich and not from the poor. Simply don't steal. [I was in Temple Israel of Hollywood on Rosh Hashanah, and the talk was about "social justice". My mom was not impressed. She did not think Torah was all about "social justice". Rather, it is about Justice, -- not social justice. Still as a family we did go the Reform.]

In spite of this, I would only pray in a Reform Temple or a Conservative one. I would run from the "religious" like one runs from a charging leopard. That is just how frightened I am from them. (This is not irrational fear. It is fear based on personal experience and observation of what I see they do to people. They make a tremendous effort to make "baali teshuva" (to make people religious) and then destroy them systematically.) [But one does have to learn and keep Torah. To learn Torah you should take one page of Gemara and keep learning it day after day. That is read it from the beginning until the end with the Tosphot and Maharsha--every day the same page until something gives way and you understand its depths.  This is  the "in depth" session. besides that you need a fast session to get through the  Oral Law- Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta, Sifri and Sifra. But you don't need to go anywhere near a religious synagogue, Heaven forbid!]

And it would not matter if the only mikvah in town was in an religious synagogue. I would still simply refuse to go anywhere near the religious. [I would go to the ocean.  When I was in the mountains there was a nearby stream which I dug deep into so it could be used for  mikvah.
The Sitra Achra (Realm of Evil) just got too much intertwined with "religious" Judaism until it is impossible to separate the two.

This fact is hidden to many religious  people - because they think their approach is based on Talmud and Halacha. They are unaware that it is not based on Halacha at all, but rather it takes a few  rituals to cover up what is really going on.

 What makes this almost impossible to know is that people today rarely every learn the books of the Shatz and his prophet Nathan from Gaza. But if you have had the sad experience of  reading those misguided books, then you can see right away how the most basic teachings of the Shatz are part and parcel of Religious Judaism today.

[If I was back at Beverly Hills I would not drive to Temple Israel in Hollywood on Shabat. I would stay home and learn Torah. But I would make an effort to be part of a Conservative, Re-constructionist or Reform Temple during the week. The trouble with driving is that it involves  fire. I learned that in a high school physics books about how the spark plug and the four- cylinder car engine works. If it would be just electricity, that would be allowed.]

In sum: Reform is right about some things, but wrong on others. My younger brother in fact goes to a Conservative shul. But there are things I think Conservative have also gotten a bit wrong. Personally, I just can't see anything as good as a straight normal Litvak yeshiva.




Appendix:
1) The major support of Reform and Conservative Judaism comes from Musar (Ethical) books of traditional Judaism.
I mean the major principle of Reform Judaism is what? That between man and your fellow-man comes before between Man and God. This is the exact principle of Musar.
 "You should walk in his ways, and keep his mitzvot."
The command to walk in his ways we know is the commandment "What is he? Kind. So you too be kind."
R. Haim Vital, the disciple of Isaac Luria, in chapters one and two of his Musar book Shaarei Kedusha makes the same point. And the great Yemenite Kabbalist, The Rashash (R. Shalom Sharabi), goes into this exact point in detail. He says the soul of a person is his character traits. The mitzvot are simple the clothing and food of the soul, but not the soul itself. [נפש השכלית]
Reb Haim Vital says, "One must be more careful to stay away from bad character traits than be keeping positive and negative commandments, because bad traits are very much worse that sins."
There is no clear connection between being religious and being a decent human being. It is clear from that that the religious world is not keeping Torah properly. Fanaticism is just a cover up for something that is not Torah.


2) The major problem with the religious is not so much in places where there is a strong Litvak yeshiva presence. For example in Brooklyn where the three major Litvak yeshivas are located {Haim Berlin, Mir, Torah VeDaat} even local shuls (synagogues) tend to be straight Torah oriented.
3) The main problem I see with the strictly religious  is the idea of a עיר הנדחת a city in which false gods are worshiped. The law is that the city is destroyed--everyone  and everything. The reason being that even the tzadikim inside the city acquiesced. That is they did not actively protest or simply leave. Only Rav Shach saw the problems and objected.




[I hope it is clear what I am saying. If I would have  A Litvak yeshiva in the area that would be one thing. But the religious world outside of that is very insane. And sadly to some degree the insanity has penetrated.]

Another problem with the religious is  the desire to rule others. They invariably ruin everything they touch. 

Another point is that prophet Jeremiah says חרפת עולם אתן להם (an everlasting shame) about Klal Israel. That means that almost any involvement with the religious be definition brings about involvement with the Dark Side. I thought I could avoid this problem by sticking with the most straight form of Torah--the Litvak Yeshiva, but there also (sadlly enough) the Sitra Ahra managed to find a way in.

Electricity on Shabat

On the subject of Electricity on Shabat: if you invent elaborate enough evasions, you can make any idea at all work.
What happened is no one cares about the Chazon Ish but forbidding electricity on Shabat is a good way to de-legitimize Reform Jews.

Orthodox Judaism encountered, and failed, its first great test of whether it had the qualities a truly religious person is supposed to have: humility, and respect for the truth. (Sorry the first great test was Charles Darwin. No sorry the first one was the Rambam. At least that test the Jewish people passed well enough. Though his philosophy is not taken seriously by any Jewish group, at least he is accepted as part of the cannon.)


But I can understand why someone would want to be strict like the Chazon Ish just from faith that he knew what he was talking about (faith in the wise), but personally I have never been able to make any sense out of that particular place where he says using electricity is binyan בנין.
(It fits with the Gemara but it introduces an outside principle not implicit in the Gemara-- plus it is against all the Rishonim. Given enough ad-hoc postulates, it is possible to make any theory, no matter how bizarre, work.)


I once thought the Chazon Ish had some support from an argument in Kelim between the Rambam and Raavd. But subsequent thought convinced me that neither the Rambam or Raavad gave him any support.
And the problem is in fact greater than this. The problem is that in the Chazon Ish most of the time he is absolutely brilliant. But then sometimes out of the blue he writes stuff that just makes  no sense.

Reb Shelomo Zalman Aurbach  spent a lot of time in his book trying to disprove  the Chazon Ish, but then put in some statement at the end to make it politically correct--(not for halacha he wrote)

The best reason to forbid electricity I could ever come up with to say that electricity should be forbidden is in the fact the basic act of work of lighting a fire is when it is in order to make coal [as was done in the Tabernacles], so that a light bulb would be forbidden by מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה  work done not for its own sake. If electricity was fire then this would in fact be forbidden. The problem really comes from the fact that electricity is not fire

Rebitzin's husband: Adam,
What do you mean, don't quote R' Shlomo Zalman? Of course in Meorei Esh he attempts to completely disprove previous halachic understandings of electricity, including that of the Chazon Ish. However, what do you mean that his psak forbidding electricity was to be "politically correct"? He forbids on a Torah level an incandescent light-bulb as you mention, and forbids ALL other electrical devices because of minhag. I am pretty confident that just as he davened maariv every night, he did not use electricity on shabbat.




Me: True he also noticed that particular Rambam about the burning coal. If that is what he is standing on then you are right-a light bulb is forbidden according to that Rambam.

Later I heard Rav Shach [Menachem Eliezer Shach] discusses this and in particular brings that Rambam about the coal. But I don't have his book.  In the meantime I did a little work on "work that is not necessary for its purpose" concerning coals. This area of investigation is totally separate from the making vessels or building aspect on things and here I admit that I did not finish. The reason being that we were in the middle of that Tosphot in Yoma, [You know which one. The biggest Tosphot in Shas, page 34.] and then I saw the Rabbi Akiva Eiger who tries to prove the opinion of the Aruch. At that point I gave up and decided to go to Sanhedrin. I admit there is still plenty of work to do on this issue but so far I have not seen a thing which would indicate any problem about electricity.
I must have written on some blog some of the issue that came up in those days. The main area of investigation at this point seems to the page in Tractate Kritut and the Reb Chaim Halevi Soloveitchik.
The major point that comes up is that burning of a fire is liable when one's intension is to make coals. And this seems to be the case no matter how you look at מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה.
That is to say there is an argument how to understand this basic concept. But no matter turning on an electric light is not going to be considered needed for its sake in any case.
So since we go by Rabbi Shimon this at least is not liable. And the Rambam that thinks it is liable is because he does not decide like Rabbi Shimon.

But so far all we have is an electric light which is far anyway from electricity in general