Electricity on Shabbat

One of the most pressing problems for the orthodox Jewish world is that of using electricity on Shabbat and Yom Tov. When I have written in the past about Yom Tov, many readers wanted to know what is the difference between Shabbat and Yom Tov and what is the opinion of Halakha regarding electricity on Shabbat. Well, it is hard to say what is the opinion of Halakha, since there are so many voices in our over-communicated world, but it seems that most people believe that the use of electricity is categorically forbidden. In that spirit, we could say that the question was: are there any opinions which do not consider electricity forbidden, or consider it to be less severe than a biblical prohibition?

1. Rabbi Oyerbach: You Cannot Forbid What is Permissible

An answer to this question can be found in an article written by Rabbi Mordechai Halperin, who was very close to Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Oyerbach (1910-1995) and consulted him constantly. Rabbi Halperin, born in 1946, is an illustrious polymath, a medical doctor who holds degrees in physics, mathematics, and law, and a leader in the field of medical ethics. His many roles as a doctor, Rosh Yeshiva, a Lt. Colonel in the IDF (res.), and the head of Schlesinger Institution for Medical Ethics, exposed him to a wide spectrum of problems, which he regularly brought to the attention of Rabbi Oyerbach.

The article in which those excerpts appear is titled: The Approach of Rabbi Oyerbach to the Laws of Medicine and Protection of Life[i].

The second category in Rabbi Halperin’s discussion is called סייג לחכמה, Wisdom’s Guard, and it alludes to the rabbinical statement that keeping quiet is sometimes the wise thing to do. The first chapter in this category is titled:

כשם שאסור להתיר את האסור, כך אסור לאסור את המותר

This is a famous Halakhic rule, which unfortunately seems to have been forgotten or ignored in recent decades, and one which I have discussed extensively in this forum in the past:

Just as one cannot allow that which is forbidden, one cannot forbid that which is allowed.

Writes Rabbi Halperin:

It is well known that great scholars disagreed on the halakha of completing an electric circuit on Shabbat. According to the Chazon Ish (R. A. Y. Karelitz 1878-1953) doing so is a transgression of the biblical prohibition on construction on Shabbat. Rabbi Oyerbach, on the other hand, thinks that there is a biblical prohibition [only] on turning on an incandescent light bulb, since that is similar to starting a fire[ii]. In other devices, which do not include a light bulb or a heating coil, there is no problem of construction, and there is no difference between turning on a water tap and activating an electric circuit.

Thirty years ago (in 1967), in my youth (R. Halperin was 21 at the time), I came to R. Oyerbach with a halakhic question. Rabbi Oyerbach led the conversation to the theme of electric devices on Shabbat and asked me: “How should I respond to people who ask about using certain electric devices on Shabbat?” [He said] that in his opinion there is no prohibition against it, but the broader audience, which does not fully understand the combination of technological concepts and Halakhic minutiae, might not understand the difference between permissible and forbidden devices and that would lead to errors.

I asked the rabbi whether it wouldn’t be better to forbid the use of all devices, and the rabbi answered that such a solution will be against the Halakha because: “Just as one cannot allow that which is forbidden, one cannot forbid that which is allowed”. In our generation [said R. Oyerbach] we do not have the authority to legislate new regulations.

R. Halperin concludes this part of the discussion by saying:

שתיקה יכולה להיות פתרון לבעיה אותה הציג הרב זצ"ל. אין בה הטלת איסור שלא כדין על דברים מותרים, ואין בה סכנת בלבול בין מכשירים מותרים למכשירים אסורים. שהרי ללא הוראת היתר מפורשת, מנהג ישראל להחמיר בכל הנוגע למכשירים חשמליים בשבת, ושתיקה שאיננה מספקת את הוראת ההיתר, איננה יוצרת סכנת בלבול כזה.

Silence could be the solution to the problem raised by Rabbi [Oyerbach, regarding the use of electric devices on Shabbat.] It does not forbid that which is permitted, and it does not carry the risk of confusion between permitted and forbidden devices. Without an explicit ruling to allow [using electric devices] the common practice is to be stringent when it comes to using electric devices on Shabbat.

R. Halperin argues that:

1) inaction is the best solution to the dilemma of the Posek. He cannot say that it is forbidden yet does not want to say that it is allowed, so by not saying anything, people assume it is forbidden; and

2) that the practice is to be stringent and not use electric devices on Shabbat.

I would like to comment on each of R. Halperin’s arguments.

1) Inaction could only go a certain distance. First, Rabbi Oyerbach mentioned on several occasions that he holds that there is no prohibition in using certain devices on Shabbat, and that information has been since disseminated. Second, since there are other rabbis who addressed the issue, and the sides of the debate are well-known now, keeping silent is agreeing with those who forbid the use of electricity on Shabbat. Finally, there has been steady erosion within the orthodox community regarding their willingness to observe the prohibition, which in turn created an underground movement of people leading double lives. They are fully observant in the public arena, but in the privacy of their home they use electric devices. In some communities this phenomenon has become the norm and it is called half-Shabbat. In Israel, data analysis showed a spike in WhatsApp use on Shabbat afternoon in areas with religious concentration, and further investigation found that observant Jews were trying to figure out where to meet for “Shalishidis” – the third meal of Shabbat.

2) Saying that the practice is to be stringent is falling into the trap of defining prohibition as stringency. The very same quote that R. Oyerbach used to justify not declaring a prohibition, is explained by the R. Shabetai Cohen, author of Siftay Cohen, or Shach, on Shulhan Arukh as a cautionary measure against stringencies which turn out to be leniencies:

ש"ך, פלפול בהנהגת הוראות באיסור והיתר (בסוף סי' רמב): כשם שאסור להתיר את האסור כך אסור לאסור את המותר... מפני שעל הרוב יש בו צד הקל במקום אחר מחמת שנאסר והוי חומרא דאתי לידי קולא ואף על פי שלפי הנראה לא יבא מזה צד קולא אסור שאפשר שיתגלגל ויבא קולא עד אחר מאה דברים

Just as one cannot permit that which is forbidden, one cannot forbid that which is permitted… because in the majority of cases there is an element of leniency in a ramification of the case, and it is therefore a stringency which leads to a leniency. Even though it seems that no leniency will stem from the prohibition, it is forbidden to rule so, because it might come after a hundred steps [of development].

Let me illustrate this somewhat confusing legal lingo with a simple example pertaining to the use of electricity on Shabbat.

Because people chose to be “strict” on the matter, using electricity is viewed by many as one of the major transgressions on Shabbat, one which is biblically forbidden and carries capital punishment, and which should be avoided at all costs. The result is that many orthodox Jews, when faced with a medical or fire emergency on Shabbat, will not make a phone call, and there were cases that ended with fatalities. This problem is also manifested in the work of observant doctors, which slows down on Shabbat as they have to ask a non-Jew to take notes for them. It would have been better and easier to allow doctors and nurses to use tablets to expedite their work and to assure that they are available when needed for an emergency.

The posek, or the common Jew, who is “strict” regarding the use of electricity, is extremely “lenient” when it comes to caring for the sanctity of human life. This result may have not been foreseen by the first rabbis who declared electricity on Shabbat to be biblically forbidden or chose to remain neutral, but with the growing presence of electricity in our lives, it is time to seriously address the problem and inform the people.

2. Readers Respond

Because I believe a Posek must communicate with a broad range of opinions in the community, I originally posted the following question in my daily bulletin:

Why would turning on an incandescent lightbulb be considered burning or starting a fire?

Here are some of the responses. The first one is somewhat negative and came from a Facebook friend. It illustrates what a posek might go through when trying to be honest and transparent:

“Friend”: Hi, I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish with the electricity on Shabbat series. Are you trying to enable observant people to use electricity or for unobservant people to feel good that they’re religious? I believe it’s a silly topic. One must see ahead and see the consequences of what they permit. You give a hand and they take an arm. It’s very dangerous. You should consider this before proceeding with the topic!

I didn’t answer immediately, and about two hours later…

“Friend”: Any feedback?

Me: It’s not meant for you.

“Friend”: If that’s the case, why send it openly?

1. you’re catering to a crowd that doesn’t exist. Those who have a hard time refraining from electricity simply use it on Shabbat. Those who have a certain level of yirat shamayim [reverence of God] refrain from it with pleasure. By “allowing” electricity you’re just making a slippery slope.
2. If you’re going public with any type of article, I feel it’s best to cater to a “general crowd” and not to a specialty crowd. It gives off the wrong message and approach.

I’m just giving you my humble opinion

Me: Thank you very much.

Most responses were empathetic and informed, though, and I will address their comments below.

1: [from Hebrew] I was interested in this question for a long time. I am unable to understand the argument of the rabbis who say that letting current flow through a wire to light it is a biblical prohibition. They rely on Maimonides who writes: הַמְּחַמֵּם אֶת הַבַּרְזֶל כְּדֵי לְצָרְפוֹ בַּמַּיִם--הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹלֶדֶת מַבְעִיר, וְחַיָּב - If one heats metal to temper it later in water it is a subcategory of starting a fire and it is punishable. Maimonides speaks of the action and the goal – tempering, and the lightbulb is not heated for the purpose of tempering. However, I understand that R. Oyerbach interpreted Maimonides that deliberately heating metal until it glows is a biblical prohibition, and there are also those who argue that the prohibition is because of cooking and not because of starting a fire.

2: Thank you for bringing up this topic. I am an electrical engineer and have always had issues with the current orthodox view of electricity. My father-in-law heard a shiur which brought up your exact point and referenced Rabbi Oyerbach. My cousin in Israel was able to find me a copy of מאורי אש השלם. I started to go through it, but it is not a simple ספר to go through. I look forward to reading your continuing discussion on the issue.

3: Very interesting read. It seems to be that using electrical devises i.e. phones, TV, etc. could be allowed. But what I would like to know is how can rabbis make prohibitions without doing any research on the subject matter? If they do their research when it comes to fertility, kashrut, etc. then why don't they do it here? What's the reason for automatically saying "no?" It doesn't seem fair to me and makes me lose faith in the rabbinate.

4: In response to your closing question, didn’t the original concern of electrical fires also stem from our earlier reliance on 220 systems in NY, and the regular threat of unsafe electrical wiring back in the days of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein? As for the incandescent bulb itself, can’t there be a spark at the end of its life (not so for LED)? And finally, I still don’t get the “complete the circuit” argument that many make about flipping on a light switch; and how this results in “creation” on Shabbat (which, of course, seems bizarre in itself since we create all sorts of things on Shabbat).

5: This has been a question in my mind also. The light bulb gives off light as a result of resistance of the coil between the positive and negative poles. It is not burning since burning infers combustion which refers to changing of a substance from one form to the other. When we turn on the lightbulb, we create a circuit of flowing electricity. The filament gives off heat based on the resistance in the filament, so this does not mean burning or creating fire. The physical process is completely different. A fire is rapid oxidation of a combustible substance, usually carbon-based such as wood. It is essentially an oxygen molecule forming a bond with the carbon molecules in the material. This is an exogenic reaction. It releases heat. Because the chemical bonds of oxygen to carbon are lower in energy than the chemical bonds of carbon to carbon. When the reaction is slow it results in a gradual degradation of the material. When it is rapid, it generates so much heat that a fire ensues which is self-sustaining and releases light and heat as photons. The light emitted by an incandescent bulb comes from the energy generated by electrons moving through a material such as tungsten that is not a good conductor. The electrons are impeded from moving rapidly through the filament by bumping into the atoms of the metal. In so doing, they knock the electrons that are in the metal matrix into a higher energy state. When those electrons move back down to the lower energy state, they release photons. The photons released are perceived as light and heat. So, a fire is a chemical reaction. An incandescent bulb is the movement of electrons through an electrically resistant material. Both processes release light and heat in the form of photons, but the process generating the photons is different.

6: For me, as a physicist, electricity was considered forbidden on totally flawed understanding of the operating principles. The incandescent bulb is prohibited due to 'cooking' the wire until it glows white hot. This was forbidden, in a case when you were fixing the metal, much like a blacksmith did.... This has no resemblance to a filament bulb. And even if this was a prohibition, electricity should still be used in all other cases without concern that people will error - like we allow people to eat fish without being concerned people will end up doing 'borer'. The Chazon Ish's concept of a switch creating something is akin to saying that folding the seat down of a chair creates a chair....

3. The Light Bulb

Let us now consider this question:

Why would turning on an incandescent lightbulb be considered burning or starting a fire?

R. Halperin writes:

About 25 years ago I found a note in my father’s Shabbat tractate:

[In a] conversation with R. Shlomo Zalman Oyerbach, on the 10^th of Elul 5731 (1971) regarding turning off the light on Shabbat, [the rabbi said]: “I have reached a conclusion thirty years ago (1941) regarding the matter but I am afraid to publish it…”

R. Halperin’s father told him that R. Oyerbach asked the following question, which R. Halperin defines as מדהימה בפשטותה – of astounding simplicity: It is true that lighting an incandescent lightbulb is a transgression of the biblical prohibition of starting a fire, because lighting the bulb lets electricity flow through the tungsten filament, which heats rapidly to the point where the heat produces glowing light, thus creating a metal coal, which is an act of starting a fire. Turning the light off, however, is not putting out the heat, but rather stopping the flow which causes the heat, which in turn causes the filament to cool down and stop glowing.

The process of putting out a metal coal, as described in the Talmud and by Maimonides, involves dipping the glowing coal in water. Turning off the bulb is analogous to removing a metal coal from the heat source, thus letting it cool down, without dipping it in water…

Justifying the prohibition of turning off electricity on Shabbat is problematic for R. Oyerbach. R. Oyerbach disagreed with the Hazon Ish who argued that completing an electric circuit is a transgression of the prohibition of construction. R. Oyerbach insisted that the Hazon Ish’s opinion is unacceptable, and so arrived at his conclusion which he preferred not to publish.

At this point of the discussion one might ask why did R. Halperin publish what R. Oyerbach chose not to, and why am I publishing it here. The answer is that R. Oyerbach himself published it in 1978, seven years after the conversation recorded in that note. R. Halperin explains that R. Oyerbach was willing to publish his question because he found a possible answer:

ברם אפשר לומר דשאני הרחקת גחלת של מתכת מהאש שאינה גורמת כלל שום שינוי באש שמבעיר את המתכת, כי אין ביניהם שום קשר, פרט לזה שמקודם היה קרוב ועתה נתרחק ולכן אין חשיב זה כיבוי. מה שאין כן בחשמל, כיון שהכיבוי נעשה מפני שפעולת הזרם נפסקת, ויש קשר חזק בין החוט המאיר והזרם. לכן לענין דין מבעיר ומכבה נראה שרואים את הזרם כשמן שבתוך נר, וכמו שהמרחיק שמן מן הפתילה או פתילה מן השמן נקרא מכבה, כך גם הפסקת הזרם... ואין כאן אלא איסור מדרבנן בלבד

However, we can argue that removing a metal coal from the fire is different, because it does not change the status of the flame which heats the coal. There is no connection between the coal and the flame except their location, they were first close, and then they became removed from each other, and it is therefore not considered putting out. But with electricity, putting out occurs because the flow [of electricity] stops, and there is a strong connection between the filament and the current. Therefore, regarding the law of starting and putting out a fire, it seems that we consider the current to be the oil in a receptacle. Just as one who removes the oil from the wick or vice versa is considered putting out the flame, so does one who stops the current… but it is only a rabbinical prohibition.

R. Halperin concludes: ולא הצלחתי להבין – I cannot understand the argument.

My interpretation is that R. Oyerbach strove to find a way to justify the prohibition. He argues that when a coal is removed from the flame, that flame remains unchanged, but when the current stops, the source of heat is changed, and we “suck” the electricity out of the filament. This is similar to syphoning oil from a burning candle, thus shortening its life. This argument is hard to accept for two reasons:

1. The current is not the energy. Its flow through the filament causes resistance which generates heat. We therefore cannot analogize it to the oil in the candle, which is the fuel.
2. The focus of the discussion of “putting out” a metal coal is the coal and not the flame. The concern is that cooling down the coal in water is tantamount to putting out a fire, and when the coal is not submerged in water that concern does not exist. The filament is the equivalent of the coal and since it is not submerged in water, there is no concern of putting out a fire.

Note that R. Oyerbach addresses only the lightbulb and not other electric devices, and that we still have to examine the assumption that turning on the light is considered starting a fire. Beyond that, we should consider the consequences of a ruling which does not categorically forbids the use of electricity on Shabbat.

4. Where do we go from here?

The state of electricity on Shabbat today is in dispute, as the rabbis argue how they can label it is a prohibition.

Those who say it is forbidden provide multiple reasons: בונה, מכה בפטיש, מבעיר, מבשל, מוקצה, מוליד, עובדין דחול – construction, final blow which completes a vessel, starting a fire, cooking, creating a new thing, generating heat, not in the spirit of Shabbat.

Those who refuse to issue a sweeping prohibition prove that these arguments are not valid, but prefer to follow the general practice and to trust the people.

People are divided: most believe that everything is forbidden, while some feel that certain things are fine. This last group divides into three: a) those who lead a double life, and use electricity privately; b) those who choose the cognitive dissonance – not using it even though they think it’s permitted; and c) those who abandon observance completely.

Before we continue the discussion, I would like to describe the direction and purpose of this article.

1. Discuss Halakha in an honest and transparent manner.
2. Respect the intelligence and discretion of those who are not rabbis.
3. Save lives and souls.
4. Maintain a balance between עונג שבת ורוח השבת – enjoying Shabbat and the spirit of Shabbat.
5. Help people who struggle with Shabbat observance.

Let me expand on each one of those points:

1. Halakha is often discussed in a way meant to make it inaccessible for most people, including those who attended yeshivot for many years. Some of the manifestations of this tendency are: a) the use of Halakhic jargon; b) books which summarize and distill Halakha without explaining the process and the reasoning for the final verdict; c) the use of obscure or ambiguous references, meaning that when the reference is checked it is unclear how it supports the argument; d) misleading or inaccurate translation to English or to modern Hebrew.
2. In many cases Halakha is decided “for the people” by the rabbis because of the fear that people will not know the difference between A and B, and because of the concern that if A will be allowed, people will continue to allow everything from A to Z. We must trust people’s intelligence and their ability to discern one cases from another. We also must acknowledge that information is accessible to all who seek it, and that people can make the right decision using that information and applying it to their life-circumstances and necessities. The “slippery slope” syndrome is overrated, as explained in point #4, as observant people tend to be “stricter” just so they could be on the “right” side.
3. R. Oyerbach was reluctant to issue a ruling based on his understanding of electricity. He trusted people to know when the use of electricity is justified, but they responded with passivity and fear, and preferred to accept the opinion that all use is biblically prohibited. Many lives were lost because of that. Many of those tragedies are a direct result of the prohibition, such as the refusal to call 911 for medical or other emergencies, and fires which broke because of overheated Shabbat hotplates. Many more are unknown or untraceable. For example, Israeli hospitals rely on non-Jews to perform certain tasks on Shabbat, which could lead to a slowing down of all procedures. That slow-down, even if it is only by a fraction, might cause irreversible damage to some patients.
4. It is extremely important to maintain the spirit of Shabbat. We don’t want people to be glued to their screens or driving their Teslas and EVs to work on Shabbat. On the other hand, there are many devices whose use could make Shabbat easier and enjoyable without detracting from the spirit of Shabbat and maybe even augmenting it. For example, AC, elevators, humidifiers, baby monitors, and electric wheelchairs.
5. For many who struggle with questions of faith, Halakha, and Jewish identity, flipping the switch, literally, epitomizes the moment in which they left everything behind. Because the use of electricity on Shabbat is perceived as the ultimate transgression, and because it is so easy to do, so enticing, and so ubiquitous, this is the first thing they do to rebel against Halakha or to test their limits. Had they have been dealt with honestly, as suggested on point #1, things might have worked differently for them.

5. Light on = Starting a Fire?

Most Halakhic discussions of heating metal revolve around two rulings of Maimonides, which seem contradictory. Those rulings are rooted in the Babylonian and the Yerushalmi Talmud, according to the commentators of Maimonides.

In the Laws of Shabbat 9:6, we read:

המתיך אחד ממיני מתכות כל שהוא, או המחמם את המתכת עד שתעשה גחלת הרי זה תולדת מבשל... כללו של דבר בין שריפה גוף קשה באש או שהקשה גוף רך הרי זה חייב משום מבשל

Melting any metal, or heating metal until it becomes a coal, is considered a subcategory of cooking… the rule is that whether one softened a hard object or hardened a soft one by fire, he is punishable for cooking.

In chapter 12:1-2 Maimonides writes:

המחמם את הברזל כדי לצרפו במים, הרי זה תולדת מבעיר וחייב. אבל המכבה גחלת של מתכת פטור, ואם נתכוין לצרף חייב. שכן לוטשי הברזל עושים, מחמים את הברזל עד שיעשה גחלת ומכבין אותו במים כדי לחסמו, וזהו לצרף שהעושה אותו חייב והוא תולדת מכבה

Heating iron to temper it in water, is a subcategory of starting a fire and is punishable, but putting out a metal coal is exempt [from punishment] and if the intention was to temper it, it is punishable. For this is what blacksmiths do, they heat the iron until it becomes a coal, and then put it out by water to temper it. That is the meaning of the word לצרף [mentioned in the Talmud, Shabbat 41:2], which is punishable and is the subcategory of putting out a fire.

The commentators offer various interpretations to these Halakhot and how they could be traced back to the Talmudic sources. I believe that the most logical explanation is the one given by R. Shlomo of Chelm (1716-1781), in Merkevet ha-Mishne:

וידוע דמי שרוצה לחסם כלי מתכות הוא מלבנו היטב וזורקו לתוך המים ולהיפך מי שרוצה להסיר החיסום שיהיה רך ונוח למלאכה הוא חוזר ומשליכו לתוך האש עד שיעשה כגחלת ואז הוסר החיסום וזה ידוע לצורפים. והיכא שמחממו כדי לרככו הוה ליה תולדת מבשל ואם מחממו כדי לצרפו במים הרי זה תולדת מבעיר

It is known that if one wants to temper a metal vessel, he heats it until it is white-hot and then throws it into the water. [This could be] reversed, if one wants to untemper and make [the vessel] soft and malleable, he throws it into the fire until it becomes a coal, and then it is untampered, and this is known to blacksmiths. [So,] when one heats it to make it soft it is a subcategory of cooking, and if he heats it to temper it in water it is the subcategory of starting a fire.

It is easy to see that while these definitions might have applied to the early lightbulbs, they cannot be applied to the current incandescent lightbulb.

To be considered cooking, the desirable result is malleable metal, but that is neither the intention nor the result of turning the light on. The filament does not become soft, it is not accessible, as even a slight crack in the glass encasing could let oxygen in and burn the filament, and we are not going to mold the filament into another shape.

To be considered starting a fire, the metal must be heated with the intention of tempering it in water, and this also is neither the intention nor the result of turning the light on. Not only it is not the intention, but even if we wanted to do temper the filament in a different method, it would have been impossible.

Here is an abbreviated list of the steps necessary for making the tungsten filament:

1. Apply great pressure to turn tungsten powder into a fragile bar.
2. Heat it to 1300 degrees Celsius (2372 F) and then cool with water.
3. Pass a current through the tungsten while heating it to 3200 degree Celsius (5792 F), and then cool again.
4. Heat yet again to 1500 degree Celsius, but this time while flowing hydrogen over it.
5. Pass it through a series of dies to cold work it and then hammer it.
6. Final step: heat it and then reduce the temperature gradually while drawing it into a 1 mm diameter wire.

We see that turning on a lightbulb cannot reasonably be categorized as cooking or starting a fire, so what argument is left? The argument of generating heat.

What is the source of the prohibition of generating heat on Shabbat? Is there even such a prohibition?

6. Generating Heat

Generating heat on Shabbat is one of those things everybody “knows” are forbidden, yet few know why. Let us look at the sources.

The Mishnah (Shabbat 4:1) states:

אין טומנין לא בגפת ולא בזבל לא במלח ולא בסיד ולא בחול בין לחים בין יבשים לא בתבן ולא בזגים ולא במוכים ולא בעשבים בזמן שהן לחים

It is forbidden to keep a pot [warm by putting it] in olive residue, fertilizer, salt, Lyme, or sand, whether wet or dry, and not in hay, grapeseed, wool, or grass if they are wet.

Maimonides explains in his commentary on the Mishnah:

שאין אסור בשבת לחמם או להוסיף חום אלא בתולדות האש, וכל אלו אינן תולדות האש, ונאסרו בשבת גזרה שמא ירתיח, ויאמרו כדרך שמותר להוסיף הבל בדברים אלו על ידי הטמנה כך מותר על גבי האש, ויבוא לחמם תבשילו על גבי האש בשבת

The prohibition to heat or to add heat on Shabbat only applies to the ramifications of fire. All these are not ramifications of fire, and they were forbidden on Shabbat [only] by rabbinical decree, for fear they will cause the food to boil. That in turn will lead people to think that just as it is allowed to heat food in that manner, it is allowed to heat food on the fire, and they will end up heating food on the fire on Shabbat.

The Mishnaic methods of warming food or keeping it warm are alien to us, but two points Maimonides is making are important to our discussion:

1. The prohibition of generating heat on Shabbat applies only to actions stemming from the use of fire, directly or indirectly.
2. The rabbinical extension of the prohibition applies only when the heat generated is used to heat food or keep it warm.

This point is emphasized by R. Yitzhak Yosef in Yalkut Yosef, his anthology of his father R. Ovadia Yosef’s rulings[i]. The context of R. Yosef’s discussion is using the phone of Shabbat. He quotes R. Yitzhak Shmelkis (1827-1905) who ruled that it is prohibited because of מוליד – giving birth or creating. The concept of מוליד is mentioned in the Talmud[ii] regarding the practice of burning herbs and perfumes on coals and letting fabrics absorb the fragrance. The Talmud says that even though cooking on Yom Tov is allowed, smoking fabrics is forbidden, and R. Shmelkis argued that creating electricity should similarly be forbidden. R. Yosef challenges this analogy:

[אסור להוליד] ריחא בשיראים, והוא דבר הנרגש בחוש, אבל כח החשמל אינו נרגש בחוש, מנא לן שיהיה אסור בשבת? ובשו"ת ציץ אליעזר ח"א (סי' כ פרק י) כתב שחילוק זה נכון ומתקבל על הלב, ועיין שם. גם הגרש"ז אויערבאך במאמר שבספר עטרת שלמה (עמ' כ) כתב, שקשה מאד לחדש איסור מוליד במה שלא נזכר בש"ס להדיא, והבו דלא להוסיף עלה, שהרי הולדת חום גם כן נקראת בגמ' (שבת מח א) דאולודי קא מוליד, ואף על פי כן אינו אסור אלא כשהוא מבשל, הא לאו הכי אינו אסור משום מוליד

One is not allowed to create [lit. give birth to] fragrance in the silk, because it is something we can feel with our senses, but electricity cannot be felt with our senses, so what is the basis for declaring it forbidden on Shabbat?[R. Eliezer Waldenberg also] wrote in Tzitz Eliezer, 1:20:10, that it is logical to distinguish between creating fragrance and creating electricity. Similarly, R. Shlomo Zalman Oyerbach wrote in an essay at the end of Atereth Shlomo that it is very difficult to invent a prohibition of מוליד regarding issues which were not explicitly mentioned in the Talmud, and it should be agreed by all that nothing should be added to [the prohibition which is mentioned]. [The proof is] that generating heat is also referred to in the Talmud (Shabbat 48:1) as מוליד, and even so, it is only forbidden when one is cooking. If one is not cooking, the creation of heat is not forbidden.

R. Yosef refers the reader to the responsa by R. Waldenberg. Here is an excerpt of the discussion:

R. Waldenberg quotes R. Alter Shtieglitz of Galicia, who in turn quotes R. Nathan Lewin, the son-in-law of R. Shmelkis, who challenges R. Shmelkis’s ruling and concludes:

ואם כן במקום הפסד מרובה היה מקום להתיר, אך לאשר כבר יצא לאיסור מפי אדמו"ר חותני הגאון הצדיק זצלל"ה לא ארצה להתיר

[Using the phone] should be permitted where there is הפסד מרובה, but since my father-in-law ruled against it, I would not want to rule that it is permissible.

הפסד מרובה literally means great loss, but in halakhic literature it became a term which signifies great need, for financial, physical, or emotional reasons, which falls short of פיקוח נפש – a life-threatening situation. R. Waldenberg agrees with the argument of R. Lewin and R. Shtieglitz that using the phone and creating electricity cannot be ruled forbidden on grounds of the prohibition of מוליד, generating fragrance, generating heat, or generating electricity.

The historical development of this discussion teaches us that the reaction of many rabbis to electricity was instinctive rather than logical. They felt that is should be forbidden on Shabbat and searched for Talmudic sources to justify their ruling. Already in the early 1900’s prominent rabbis, who began to better understand the nature of electricity, challenged the logical foundation of the ruling. However, those rabbis were reluctant to rule against their predecessors.

7. Electricity on Shabbat: Conclusion

The purpose of this article is not to issue a ruling on the use of electricity on Shabbat but rather to honestly examine the minority opinion, which holds that most actions associated with electricity cannot fall under the category of biblical or rabbinical prohibition. Let us review and summarize the issue:

Already at the early stages of harnessing electricity for the use of the average home, the instinctive feeling of most observant Jews was that it should be forbidden on Shabbat. While there were those who acted or ruled differently, the majority opinion prevailed, and was also supported by most rabbis, some of whom worked diligently to provide a reason for the prohibition. Even as people started to better understand the nature of electricity, there was an aversion to changing the norm for fear of confusion which could lead to transgression and eventual erosion of the spirit of Shabbat.

The reasons suggested to forbid the use of electricity on Shabbat are:

1. בונה וסותר – construction and demolition. Turning a device on is building a circuit and running it off dismantles the circuit.
2. מכה בפטיש – lit. hitting with a hammer, which is the last of the 39 categories of Shabbat. It refers to the finishing of a product, usually a metallic object, with gentle taps. This act makes the product usable. Similarly, turning a device on makes it usable.
3. מבעיר ומכבה – starting a fire and putting it out. This is the prohibition most people associate with electricity on Shabbat.
4. מוליד חום – generating or creating heat.
5. מבשל – cooking. When turning on a lightbulb, the metal filament in the bulb is being cooked.

The counter arguments are:

1. Construction and demolition cannot be applied to the electric circuit, since there is no permanent connection. Also, the circuit is considered, at best, a utensil, and the rule is that the prohibition of construction and demolition does not apply to utensils. Finally, this will not address circuits completed through induction.
2. Hitting with a hammer has been taken out of context. It only applies to one final action and not to one performed repeatedly. The electric circuit or device is always usable.
3. Electricity is not fire.
4. Generating heat is only applicable when the heat is used for cooking, and not when a device warms up, even if its purpose is to create heat.
5. The prohibition of cooking is applicable to metal only when the metal is heated for the purpose of tempering. The filament in the lightbulb is already processed and the action of turning it on or off does not change its composition.

As we can see, there are arguments to support both sides. The question is what should be the practice? If we assume that electricity can be used on Shabbat, what would be the arguments and in favor of issuing such a ruling?

In favor:

1. Because this is considered the ultimate Shabbat-transgression, people hesitate to override it to save a life. The hesitance to declare a case as an emergency and to use electricity has caused loss of lives.
2. There are medical conditions which are not life-threatening but could cause great discomfort, such as sleep apnea. Allowing the use of certain devices could alleviate pain and prevent aggravation of medical conditions.
3. There are situations where the use of electricity does not threaten the spirit of Shabbat but rather enhances it. For example, using an elevator, restoring power when a fuse burns, adjusting the AC.
4. Using electric vehicles could help people in remote areas stay connected as a community.
5. Many people already use some form of electricity on Shabbat but feel like sinners. A clear ruling will help them deal honestly with their religious life.

Against:

1. Use of electricity in permissible forms could easily lead to biblical Shabbat transgressions, such as cooking or creating fire.
2. Many rabbis who feel that the use of electricity, at least in certain circumstances, should not be forbidden, are reluctant to change the ruling of the great scholars of past generations.
3. Allowing the use of electricity, even if meticulously conditioned, restricted, and supervised, could deteriorate into a sweeping use of electricity in all situations.
4. That, in turn, will lead to a complete erosion of the nature of shabbat, to further division within the Jewish people, and to people questioning all rulings of past generations.
5. Shabbat’s great gift to us is the ability to disconnect from screens and wheels. Such a ruling will cause people to remain glued to the screen on Shabbat, which will impact quality time and community time. People will travel everywhere, and the Jewish Shabbat might resemble Sunday, or any American holiday.

As we can see the picture is complex and the question of whether a new ruling should be issued cannot be answered by one person, even if that person is the leading Torah scholar of our generation. What needed is a concerted effort of rabbis of all factions, who will discuss the matter honestly and will issue a ruling which addresses all sides of the problem, in a manner which will be acceptable to the majority of Shabbat-observant Jews.

Until that happens, we will continue to follow the established rules regarding the use of electricity on Shabbat, while making sure not to put anyone’s life in danger because of that prohibition, as the value of human life is above all.