Q&A: Electricity on the Sabbath as Kindling
Electricity on the Sabbath as Kindling
Question
Hello Rabbi, I listened to the lesson on the labor of building and electricity on the Sabbath, and I wanted to ask two questions:
Doesn’t the fact that a plug is made to be constantly removed and inserted somewhat reduce the significance of closing an electrical circuit? After all, this is a structure made to be dismantled, by definition. And another question: does the Rabbi accept Rabbi Kook’s reasoning (responsa Orach Mishpat, section 71), which argues that anything that burns and heats is called fire, and he brings several proofs for this (for example, the fire that came down from above, the fire of the burning bush, and also several examples in Jewish law)?
Thank you very much!
Answer
Possibly yes. That requires getting into the whole topic of a modular bed and the like. But simply speaking, this is not assembling parts in a way that is then taken apart; rather, it is an option to eliminate the whole thing and build it מחדש. There is room to discuss such a case.
I’m not familiar with that. One would have to look at the proofs for it. On the face of it, in the case of the burning bush there was actual fire. Also, one could discuss cooking by the sun, which is not considered actual cooking, and similarly the hot springs of Tiberias. Admittedly, that is about cooking and not kindling, but it sounds to me like an a fortiori argument.
Discussion on Answer
Beyond this reasoning of the Chazon Ish, I think that with a modular bed, the bed itself, when assembled, looks like something made of parts for a limited time. By contrast, with an electrical circuit, although it can in fact be switched off, while it is operating it does not look that way. There is no sign, while it is functioning, that the action is temporary and put together in a provisional way. Therefore, in my opinion, there is room to see it as a permanent structure. Beyond that, with a bed there is also a bed that is not modular, so the modular one is a temporary bed. With electricity, this is its regular nature everywhere: it can always be switched on and off, and therefore it is harder to define it as temporary.
According to your approach, there would be room for building simple circuits that would not be prohibited.
I think that according to the Chazon Ish, the whole point is whether there is nullification of the parts into one another or not; that is the point in the cases discussed in the Talmudic passage about a modular bed with tight fastening, and the other explanations do not come into play.
I don’t think so. Even in a simple circuit, the flow of current creates something new. A circuit that does not do anything is another matter. Here there is definitely room for discussion.
The nullification of the parts is done by turning them into a new and different whole. Therefore I do not see a connection to the distinctions I made above.
Regarding the first question: when the nature of the circuit is to come apart and be rebuilt through frequent switching on and off, see the Chazon Ish on the subject, who writes that the intention of one who turns on a light bulb is that it should stay lit forever, and only because of payment considerations does he turn it off. I think the Chazon Ish also knew that this is a strained argument, and likewise it does not address many cases (an air conditioner, for example).