Q&A: A Scientific Layman in a Halakhic Discussion
A Scientific Layman in a Halakhic Discussion
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I have often heard people say, regarding the opinion of the Chazon Ish that operating electricity on the Sabbath involves the prohibition of building, that he simply did not understand electricity.
Aside from the fact that in my humble opinion there is no basis whatsoever for this claim, and it is quite possible to say that the Chazon Ish understood electricity very well,
but my main claim was that in order to discuss matters relevant to the laws of the Sabbath there is no need at all to understand electricity. It is enough for us to see that connecting two wires creates some sort of action in order to discuss it from a halakhic perspective [as a slight support for this, see the statements of the later authorities that one should not deliberate about what is not visible to the eye].
What does the Rabbi think about this?
Answer
In my opinion, there certainly is a basis for that feeling. It is not likely that the Chazon Ish understood what electricity is, because in order to understand it one has to study quite a bit, and he did not do that.
The Chazon Ish offers several different rationales for prohibiting electricity, and some of them seem completely far-fetched. דווקא his claim that it awakens the wire from death to life seems very reasonable to me (I first heard this from Rabbi Shabtai Rappaport), and I also discussed it in this lecture:
https://soundcloud.com/mikyabchannel/mu38nc3axt6f
As for the question of how much one needs to understand in order to determine Jewish law, I tend to think that in most cases it is not all that important. But there are cases where it is. I dealt with that in the previous lecture there, which unfortunately I do not have a recording of.
Discussion on Answer
The Chazon Ish has two arguments. One is from death to life, and the second is that there is nullification of the wires of the circuit to one another, and that nullification is treated as fastening. Does that sound far-fetched?
There are other arguments too, for example: fastening the electricity into the wires. I think there may even be more.
That is the nullification I mentioned in my comment, which is not at all a bizarre argument, and there aren’t any other arguments.
Could you please explain the meaning of: fastening the electricity into the wires
and also explain: nullification of the wires of the circuit to one another, and that nullification is treated as fastening
In the Talmud in tractate Sabbath it is mentioned that one who connects two parts by fastening them tightly is liable. The Chazon Ish explains that this is not a matter of strength alone; rather, if the connection is strong, the parts become nullified to one another and turn into a single object, and that is considered building (in utensils).
He claims that this is what happens when closing the circuit of electrical wires (I’m of Hungarian origin, so it came out as “hoti”).
True, the assumption that when I turn on electricity this counts as nullification of the wires is difficult, since I want it to be possible to turn it off. The Chazon Ish addresses that, though somewhat forcedly.)
What a loss—gone and not to be found again.