Electricity on Shabbat Sources

(2) The [number of] principal Melakhot is forty minus one. [The forbidden Melakhot are]: Sowing, plowing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, sorting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing wool, whitening it, combing it, dyeing it, spinning, weaving, making two loops, weaving two threads, separating two threads, tying [a knot], untying [a knot], sewing two stitches, tearing for the purpose of sewing two stitches, hunting a deer, slaughtering it, skinning it, salting it, curing its hide, scraping it, cutting it, writing two letters, erasing for the purpose of writing two letters, building, demolishing, extinguishing a flame, lighting a flame, striking with a hammer, carrying from one domain to another. These are the principal Melakhot - [they number] forty minus one.

ONE MAY NOT PRODUCE FIRE EITHER FROM WOOD, OR FROM STONES, OR FROM EARTH, OR FROM TILES,19 OR FROM WATER; NOR MAY ONE MAKE TILES RED-HOT IN ORDER TO ROAST ON THEM.

What is the reason? Because he is creating [something new] on a Festival.

MISHNAH. HE21 FURTHERMORE GAVE THREE LENIENT RULINGS:22 ONE MAY SWEEP A DINING-ROOM23 AND PUT THE SPICES [ON THE FIRE] ON A FESTIVAL, AND ONE MAY PREPARE A ‘HELMETED’ KID ON PASSOVER NIGHT. BUT THE SAGES FORBID THESE.

GEMARA. R. Assi said: The dispute is [only with respect] to perfuming [clothes],27 but when it is for smelling all agree that it is permitted. An objection was raised: One may not sweep a dining-room on a Festival, but in the house of Rabban Gamaliel they did Sweep. R. Eleazar b. Zadok said: Frequently I accompanied my father to the house of Rabban Gamaliel and [observed that] they did not sweep the dining-room on a Festival but they swept it on the eve of the Festival and covered it with sheets. On the morrow when guests came they removed the sheets with the result that the room was automatically swept. They said to him: If so, it is permitted to do the same even on the Sabbath. And one may not put the spices [on the fire] on a Festival, but in the house of Rabban Gamaliel they did put. Said R. Eleazar b. Zadok: Frequently I accompanied my father to the house of Rabban Gamaliel and [observed that] they did not put the spices [on the fire] on a Festival, but they used to bring in iron censers and fill them with the perfume of the incense on the eve of the Festival and stop up the vent-holes on the eve of the Festival. On the morrow when guests came they opened the vent-holes with the resuit that the room was automatically perfumed. They said to him: If so, it is permitted to do the same even on a Sabbath.28 But if stated it was thus stated: R. Assi said: The dispute is when it is for smelling, but when it is for perfuming [clothes] it is forbidden.

The scholars asked: May one fumigate29 [fruits] on a Festival? R. Jeremiah b. Abba in Rab's name says: It is forbidden;30 but Samuel says: It is permissible. R. Huna says: It is forbidden because he extinguishes [the charcoal].31 Said R. Nahman to him: Let the Master say because he kindles32 [the spices]? — He answered him: At first he extinguishes and afterwards he kindles.33 Rab Judah says: On charcoal fire it is forbidden,34 on [hot] sherds1 it is permitted;2 but Rabbah maintains: On [hot] sherds it is also forbidden because he generates a fragrance [in the sherd].3 Rabba and R. Joseph both say: It is forbidden to invert a box [of aromatics] on silken garments on a Festival, because he is producing a fragrance [in the garments]. And why is [this case] different from [the Baraitha]: One may rub it [aromatic wood] and smell it and one may nip off a bit of it and smell it?4 — There the fragrance is indeed present and one only increases the smell, [whilst] here he produces a fragrance [in the garments]. Raba [however] says: On charcoal too it is permitted, [for it is] just as roasting meat on a charcoal [fire].5 R. Gebiha from Be Kathil6 expounded at the door of the Exilarch: Kittura7 is allowed. Amemar said to him: What [is meant by] Kittura? If it means the plaiting of sleeves, [creasing of garments] then it is a craftsman's work;8 and if [it means] to fumigate, it is [surely] forbidden for he indeed extinguishes! — Said R. Ashi to him: In truth [it means] to fumigate, but it is analogous to roasting meat on a charcoal fire. Some teach: Amemar said to him: What is [meant by] Kittura? If it means the plaiting of sleeves, then it is a craftsman's work; and if [it means] to fumigate, it is [surely] forbidden, for he produces a perfume! — Said R. Ashi: I told it to him, and in the name of a great man did I tell it to him: In truth [it means] to fumigate, but it is analogous to roasting meat on a charcoal fire.

Our Rabbis taught: Though it was said, One may not store [food] after nightfall even in a substance which does not add heat, yet if one comes to add,22 he may add. How does he do it?23 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He may remove the sheets and replace them with blankets, or remove the blankets and replace them with sheets.24 And thus did R. Simeon b. Gamaliel say: Only the self-same boiler was forbidden;25 but if it [the food] was emptied from that boiler into another, it is permitted: seeing that he cools it,26 will he indeed heat it up!27 If one stored [food] in and covered [it] with a substance that may be handled on the Sabbath, or if he stored [it] in something that may not be handled on the Sabbath, but covered [it] with something that may be handled on the Sabbath, he may remove [the covering] and replace it.28 If one stored [food] in and covered [it] with a substance that may not be handled on the Sabbath, or if he stored (it] in something that may be handled on the Sabbath, but covered it with something that may not be handled on the Sabbath, provided it was partly uncovered, he may take it [out] and replace [it];29 but if not,it may not be removed and replaced. R. Judah said: Thoroughly beaten flax is the same as foliage.1 A boiler may be placed upon a boiler, and a pot upon a pot,2 but not a pot upon a boiler,3 or a boiler upon a pot;4 and the mouth [thereof]5 may [also] be daubed over with dough:6 not in order to make them7 hotter, but that [their heat] may be retained.

MISHNAH. A VESSEL, MAY BE PLACED UNDER A LAMP TO CATCH THE SPARKS, BUT ONE MUST NOT POUR WATER THEREIN, BECAUSE HE EXTINGUISHES [THEM].

GEMARA. But he deprives the vessel of its readiness? — Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: Sparks are intangible.

BUT ONE MUST NOT POUR WATER THEREIN, BECAUSE HE EXTINGUISHES [THEM].

Shall we say that we learnt anonymously as R. Jose, who maintained: That which is a cause of extinguishing is forbidden?5 Now, is that logical: granted that R. Jose ruled thus for the Sabbath: did he rule thus for the eve of the Sabbath? And should you say, Here also it refers to the eve of the Sabbath, — surely it was taught: A vessel may be placed under a lamp on the Sabbath to catch the sparks, and on the eve of the Sabbath goes without saying; but one must not pour water therein on the eve of the Sabbath, because he extinguishes [them], and the Sabbath goes without saying?-Rather, said R. Ashi, you may say that it agrees even with the Rabbis: here it is different, because one brings the extinguishing near.

Our Rabbis taught: One may not strain mustard grain through its strainer, nor sweeten it with a glowing coal. Abaye asked R. Joseph: Wherein does it differ from what we learnt: An egg may be passed through a mustard strainer? There it does not look like selecting, whereas here it looks like selecting, he replied. 'Nor sweeten it with a glowing coal'. But surely it was taught, One may sweeten it with a glowing coal? — There is no difficulty: one refers to a metal coal, the other to a wood coal.

MISHNAH. IF A BOILER IS REMOVED, ONE MAY NOT POUR COLD WATER THEREIN TO HEAT IT, BUT ONE MAY POUR IT [WATER] THEREIN [THE BOILER] OR INTO A GOBLET IN ORDER TO TEMPER IT.³²

GEMARA. What does this mean? — Said R. Adda b. Mattenah, This is its meaning: in the case of a boiler from which the hot water is removed, one must not pour into it a little [cold] water in order to heat it, but he may pour in a large quantity of [cold] water to temper it.

But does he not harden it?¹ — This agrees with R. Simeon, who ruled: That which is unintentional is permitted.² Abaye demurred to this: Is it then stated, A BOILER from which the water IS REMOVED: Surely it is stated, IF A BOILER IS REMOVED? Rather said Abaye, this is the meaning: If a boiler is removed [from the fire] and it contains hot water, one must not pour therein a little water to heat it [the added water], but he may pour a large quantity of [cold] water therein to temper it.³ But if the water is removed from a boiler, no water at all may be poured therein, because that hardens it; this agreeing with R. Judah, who maintains: [Even] that which is un-intentional is forbidden.

Rab said: They taught [that it is permitted] only to temper [the water]; but if it is to harden [the metal], it is forbidden. Whereas Samuel ruled: Even if to harden it, it is still permitted. If the primary purpose is to harden it, can it be permitted!⁴ Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab said: They taught this only where there is [merely] a sufficient quantity to temper it; but if there is enough to harden it, it is forbidden.⁵ Whereas Samuel maintained: Even if there is a sufficient quantity to harden it,

it is permitted.¹

Shall we say that Samuel agrees with R. Simeon?² But surely Samuel said: One may extinguish a lump of fiery metal in the street, that it should not harm the public,³ but not a burning piece⁴ of wood.⁵ A Now if you think that he agrees with R. Simeon, even that of wood too [should be permitted]?⁶ — In respect to what is unintentional he holds with R. Simeon; but in the matter of work which is not needed per se, he agrees with R. Judah.⁷

...

HE STRIPPED OFF [HIS GARMENTS],3 WENT DOWN AND IMMERSED HIMSELF, CAME UP AND DRIED HIMSELF.4 THEY BROUGHT HIM THE GOLDEN5 GARMENTS, HE PUT THEM ON AND SANCTIFIED HIS HANDS AND FEET. THEY BROUGHT HIM THE CONTINUAL OFFERING, ...IF THE HIGH PRIEST WAS EITHER OLD OR OF DELICATE HEALTH WARM WATER WOULD BE PREPARED FOR HIM AND POURED INTO THE COLD, TO MITIGATE ITS COLDNESS...

It was taught: R. Judah said: Lumps of wrought iron were heated on the eve of the Day of Atonement and were cast into the cold water to mitigate the coldness. But was [one] not thereby hardening them?8 — R. Bibi said: [The heat] did not reach the hardening point. Abaye said: Even assume it did reach the hardeningpoint, [a forbidden] act9 which was produced without intent, is permitted. But did Abaye say that? Has it not been taught:10 The flesh of his foreskin11 — even though a white spot12 is there may he cut it off,13 these are the words of R. Josiah. And we asked investigatingly concerning it: Why is a Scriptural statement necessary for that,14 and Abaye said: This was in accord with R. Judah who said: A forbidden act produced without intent, remains forbidden!15 That applies only to forbidden things in the whole Torah,16 but here17 hardening is [forbidden] only by Rabbinic ordination...

Halacha 1

A person who kindles even the smallest fire is liable,1 provided he needs the ash that it creates.2 However, should a person kindle a fire with a destructive intent, he is not liable, for he is causing ruin.3

Nevertheless, a person who sets fire to a heap of produce or a dwelling belonging to a colleague is liable, because his intent is to take revenge on his enemies. [Through this act,] he calms his feelings and vents his rage. He is comparable to a person who rends his garments over a deceased person or in rage [on the Sabbath],4 or a person who injures a colleague in an argument.5These individuals are all considered to be performing a constructive activity, because of their evil inclinations.

Similarly, a person who lights a candle or wood, whether to generate warmth or light, is liable.6

A person who heats iron in order to strengthen it by submerging it in water is liable for [performing] a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of kindling.7

Halacha 2

A person who extinguishes [a fire]8 of even the smallest size is liable.9 [This includes both] one who extinguishes a candle and one who extinguishes a coal that comes from wood.10 In contrast, a person who extinguishes a glowing piece of metal is not liable.11

If, however, the person's intent is to purify the metal, he is liable. This indeed is the practice of blacksmiths; they heat the iron until it glows like a coal, and extinguish it in water to seal it. This is the process of purification for which one is liable. It is a derivative [of the category of forbidden labor] of extinguishing.

It is permissible to extinguish a glowing piece of metal12 in the public domain so that many people will not be injured by it.13

A person who pours oil into a burning lamp is liable for kindling. [Similarly,] a person who takes oil from a lamp is liable for extinguishing.14

1. A person who bakes [an amount of food] the size of a dried fig is liable. Just as a person is liable for baking bread, he is liable for cooking food or herbs, or for heating water. These are all one type [of activity].1

The minimum amount of water for which one is liable for heating2 is an amount sufficient to wash3 a small limb.4 The minimum amount of herbs for which one is liable is the amount required to serve the purpose for which they are being cooked.5

6. A person who melts even the slightest amount of metal or who heats a piece of metal until [it glows like] a coal24 performs a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of cooking.25 Similarly, a person who melts wax, tallow, tar, brown tar, or pitch, and the like performs a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of cooking and is liable.

Similarly, a person who heats an earthenware utensil until it becomes hard clay is liable for cooking. The general principle is: Whether one softens a firm entity with fire or hardens a soft entity, one is liable for cooking

9. A person who writes two letters is liable. A person who erases writing so that he can write two letters is liable.

A person who writes one large letter the size of two [ordinary] letters is not liable. In contrast, a person who erases one large letter in a place where two letters can be written is liable.

A person who wrote one letter that concluded a scroll is liable. A person who writes for the sake of ruining the parchment is liable, for one is liable for the writing itself and the surface on which [the letters] are written is not significant. If one rubs out writing with the intent of ruining [the writing surface], one is not liable.

Should one rub out ink that fell on a scroll or rub out wax that fell on a writing tablet, one is liable if [the rubbed out] portion is large enough for two letters to be written upon it.