Stringencies part 4

The vast majority of Ashkenazi rabbis continue to see electricity as fire, or at least so much so, that no leniencies are accepted that would not be utilized with actual fire. On the other hand, most do not permit use of electricity on Yom Tov, when fire is, in many cases, permitted. Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik was an exception. He permitted all appliances on Yom Tov, as long as their use didn't detract from the enjoyment of Yom Tov. Thus, he permitted dish washers, but not vacuum cleaners. Today, few of his students still rely on his ruling in this area. Most Sepharadic communities freely used electricity on Yom Tov, until coming to Israel and submitting to Askenazi influence. I mentioned in my series on Shabbat, that there exists an organization in Israel called the Tsomet Institute, that creates appliances, primarily for the military, police, and hospitals, Most of these are electrical, and based on the idea of indirect, or delayed, action (causation). They produce a microphone, as well as a telephone, that work on a delay of one one hundredth of a second. This microphone is in use today in many Modern Orthodox synagogues, as well as in the Great Synagogue in Jerusalem. They also make a hot water machine, that heats up water for tea or coffee, by means of delayed action. While some are opposed to this, it has gained wide acceptance not only in hospitals, but in yeshiva dormitories as well. A delay would render a Biblical prohibition rabbinic, and a rabbinic prohibition permissible, in case of necessity. On the other hand, about eight years ago, a company came out with a "Shabbat Switch", which was met with great opposition. It connected to the main electrical outlets of the house, turning on the power, after a short delay. One could hook up not only lights, but radio, TV and all other gadgets. Why was this different from the Tsomet appliances? Rabbis pointed out that this was not intended for emergency situations, but was, rather, designed to make Shabbat like a weekday. It might not violate the laws of Shabbat, but it essentially makes Shabbat into a dead letter. Numerous rabbinic prohibitions in the Talmud are designed to not undo the feeling of Shabbat. What would be left of Shabbat if we sat around the table while checking our cellphones, and then went to visit our friends driving our electric cars? Sepharadic and Yemenite rabbis are less convinced of the idea that electricity, especially when not used to heat metal to a glowing point, is in any way to be considered :"fire", but nonetheless insist on its avoidance, because of the reason of "Uvdin D'Hol" (weekday activity). Many will, however, permit electricity to be used in case of great difficulty, even without illness or danger, on condition it is turned on in an unusual manner. (as with the elbow, for example). These things are never given as general rulings, but are dealt with on a case by case basis. Things that may not be used on a Shabbat, such as a pen, may not be moved (muktzeh). This is a basic idea in rabbinic law. Many Sepharadic rabbis do allow moving an appliance, such as a fan, as long as we do not detach it from its power source. (Rav Ovadia Yosef permitted this with appliances that had no lighting or cooking function, but many other Sepharadic rabbis do permit even that). In short, Ashkenazi opinion generally sees electricity as either fire, or likely fire, whereas Sepharaidim see it as risky, but enough of a doubt that it can be permitted in emergencies. So, is care regarding electricity a matter of halachah, or a stringency? Greater minds than mine will need to decide.This is but one of many situations where a particular activity may be permissible, but the consequences could lead to the demise of Judaism. Discretion is oft the better part of valor.

Stringencies part 3

The issue of electricity on Shabbat has been a sticking point between rabbis for well over a century, and continues to raise hackles. Many rabbis take one stance publicly, but privately maintain quite different views. One side of the argument has been so vociferous, that many assume it is the only side. Issues come into play that are not only halachic, but also pragmatic. Whether to be strict or lenient takes on another whole dimension.There can be no real solution, either, until a genuine Sanhedrin will arise. This question is a paradigm for other issues as well, that lack any solid guidelines in sources. Rabbis are forced to go with gut feelings, as well as utilizing tiny shreds of evidence that can conceivably be applied to the issue. Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (1863 - 1940), at the introduction of electrical lighting, visited a power plant, and spoke with the engineer. At the rabbi's question of what is it and how does it work, the engineer gave a grossly oversimplified answer. "We make fire in the generator, and send it through the wires". Upon hearing that, he issued a ruling that it is Biblically forbidden to turn on  the electricity, or start up any appliance on Shabbat. On Yom Tov, however, when fire is permissible (so long as it comes from an existing fire), we may feel free to turn on lights, or use appliances. This view held sway for half a century. Some rabbis even used an electric light as a havdalah candle, in order to demonstrate that we are actually dealing with fire. Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz, (1878-1953), know as  Chazon Ish, disagreed. He was unconvinced that electricity is fire, but equally unconvinced that it is not fire. He ruled that we must be strict both ways, and turn on electricity neither on Shabbat nor Yom Tov. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995), believed that the premises of his two predecessors were incorrect. He said that an electric circuit has no halachic significance. However, if electricity heated up a piece of metal, that would, indeed, be considered fire, perhaps even Biblically. He based himself on a Talmudic statement that certain Shabbat prohibitions may be ignored, in a case where the full observance would lead to pain and injury. Thus, broken glass in the street may be swept up, even in a place where there is no "eruv", as injury is likely. Similarly, the Talmud discusses a glowing metal fragment sitting in the public domain.The ruling is that it may be extinguished RASHI maintains that such a piece of metal poses a threat of injury. It isn't really "fire" by Biblical law, but is nevertheless "fire" by rabbinic law. Rabbinic law is not applicable in a case of injury or great pain, so it may be extinguished. The Tosafot say that a glowing piece of metal is indeed Biblical fire, but as the glowing metal is not easily seen by passersby, people might become so badly injured that their lives might be threatened, thus rendering even a Biblical labor permissible. Rabbi Auerbach therefore ruled that an incandescent light bulb, operating with a tungsten filament, is clearly fire, either rabbinically or Biblically. But appliances that have no glowing element are at least theoretically permissible, to be decided by a qualified rabbi on a case by case basis, so as not to bring to widespread disrespect for Shabbat. The one exception he made was with hearing aids, which he considered completely permissible, even to the extent of changing a battery. (In the 1950s, hearing aid batteries needed replacement about every three hours). However, out of respect for the Chazon Ish, he did not publicize his view widely. These three men are considered the greatest rabbinic authorities in halachic matters of their age (at least in Lithuanian circles), although none of them had any education in science. Nearly all that has been written since, struggles between these views. One prominent twentieth century rabbi went so far as to say that even if Rabbi Grodzinsky's views were based on misinformation, once it came out of his mouth, it is forever halachah. (I consider that view to be heretical). Another prominent rabbi, on the other hand, said "Had I been there when the Chazon Ish ruled against electricity, I would have gone against him...and I would have been wrong". We shall see what this means in my next post. A great Rosh Yeshivah, Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman (1900-1987) was adamant that a microphone is permissible on Shabbat. We would be hard-pressed to get that ruling from a prominent rabbi today. These are the battle lines. How they are applied by different rabbis today will be the topic of my next post.