Sources examine whether an electric timer set before Shabbat may activate lights during Shabbat, addressing the halakhic principles of grama (indirect causation), boneh (building/completing a circuit), and shvisat keilim (leaving vessels to perform work). These sources explore the distinction between preparatory action before Shabbat and prohibited work performed on Shabbat itself.
Opens as a working sheet — explore, annotate, and export.
What the sources say
The permissibility of setting an electric timer before Shabbat to turn on lights implicates several distinct halachic issues: whether the resulting action is a permitted indirect causation (grama), whether closing an electric circuit violates the prohibition of boneh, and whether one is obligated to prevent one's vessels from performing labor on Shabbat (shvisas keilim).
Grama and indirect causation
The Gemara in Shabbat 120b records a foundational debate over grama: the first tanna permits indirect causation of fire-extinguishing, while Rabbi Yosei prohibits it, establishing that gerama is at minimum a contested category with significant leniency on one side.
The Tosefta cited in Shabbat 18a and codified in Shulchan Aruch O.C. 252:5 establishes that actions initiated before Shabbat — such as opening a water canal, placing perfume on coals, or loading an olive press — are permitted even though their effects continue throughout Shabbat, because the process unfolds on its own (מאליהן) without further human intervention.
The Gemara in Shabbat 19:1 further articulates that Beit Shammai only decreed against pre-Shabbat preparations for actions that would render one liable for a sin-offering if performed on Shabbat itself, implying that self-completing processes of lesser severity are more freely permitted.
Otzrot HaRaayah (Volume 6, Part א 2:4) raises the pointed question of how setting a timer before Shabbat can be permitted given that grama of extinguishing is forbidden even before Shabbat according to all opinions, and records a response that the timer mechanism constitutes not a direct gerama but a gerama l'gerama — a cause twice removed — which is more lenient.
Gray Matter IV (The 'Sabbath Mode' Oven Controversy) notes that adjusting a timer when electricity is not yet flowing is analogous to classical cases where the harmful agent is not yet present, rendering the act an indirect causation rather than a direct one, and cites Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah's reliance on this reasoning to permit adjusting timers in cases of great need.
The Minchas Yitzchak (4:27) rules that setting an electric timer (שעון-של-החשמל) before Shabbat to control lights is permitted because the action is characterized as grama — an indirect causation — rather than a direct forbidden act, drawing comparisons to Talmudic principles of causation.
The Tzitz Eliezer (20:19) disputes this leniency, arguing that actions set in motion before Shabbat through a timer should not be considered mere grama, since the chain of physical causation begins immediately upon setting the device, and comparing it to a timed mechanism whose outcome is clearly attributed to its initiator.
Peninei Halakhah (Shabbat 17:6) records the view of Rav Auerbach that delaying the timer's action is analogous to closing a window to prevent wind from extinguishing a candle — since no act is performed on the light source itself, only the timer's future action is affected — and therefore no prohibition applies.
The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 10:12) rules that the prohibition of boneh applies to even the smallest act of building, and similarly the Gemara (Shabbat 75:2) records that any action constituting a 'completion of work' renders one liable under the category of makkeh b'patish, establishing the broad scope of constructive prohibitions.
Gray Matter IV (The Prohibition of Turning On Electric Lights on Shabbat and Yom Tov) sets out the Chazon Ish's position that completing an electric circuit constitutes a Torah-level prohibition of boneh, since it is analogous to assembling a multi-part appliance into a functional unit, and that conversely opening a circuit is an act of soteir (destroying).
Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 37:10) is not available in text for Mekoros to read, but our research indicates that he addresses this topic in this source.
Maamar Mordechai (Chelek 5 118:39) records the view of the Beit Yitzchak that closing an electrical circuit is forbidden on Shabbat because it creates (מוליד) a new electrical force — analogous to creating a new fragrance — and is at minimum a rabbinic prohibition, while also noting the view of Maorei Esh that even without a flame, the transformation of a dark body into an illuminated one constitutes a full act of molid.
Maamar Mordechai (Chelek 4 83:10) rules that pressing an electrical switch is forbidden on multiple grounds, including a Torah-level prohibition of tokeah (fastening), because one is connecting or separating two components, in addition to the muktze concern.
Shulchan Aruch O.C. 340:13 records the principle that breaking earthenware or tearing paper is forbidden because it constitutes preparing a vessel — illustrating that any act of forming or completing a functional object falls under constructive prohibitions — which authorities extend by analogy to completing an electric circuit.
The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 12:1) rules that one who kindles a flame, whether for warmth or illumination, is liable, establishing that creating light is a core Torah prohibition, against which background authorities assess whether completing a circuit to produce electric light is comparable.
The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 6:16) rules explicitly that one is permitted to lend or rent vessels to a non-Jew even though that non-Jew will perform labor with them on Shabbat, because there is no obligation of shvisas keilim — one is not commanded to ensure that one's vessels rest — while the obligation does apply to one's animals and servants.
Shulchan Aruch O.C. 252:5 codifies this ruling, explicitly stating that one may place perfume in a vessel on the eve of Shabbat and allow it to continue its process throughout Shabbat, 'because one is not commanded regarding the resting of one's vessels' (אין אדם מצווה על שביתת כלים), and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (O.C. 252) elaborates that even when the vessel itself performs the labor autonomously on Shabbat — as when traps are set before Shabbat and animals are caught on Shabbat — there is no violation.
Shulchan Aruch O.C. 338:3 and Mishnah Berurah 338:15 apply this principle to a mechanical clock set before Shabbat to chime throughout Shabbat, permitting it on the grounds that preparing a vessel before Shabbat to operate on its own does not violate any prohibition.
The Gemara (Shabbat 17:2) records the foundational machlokes between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel over whether one must complete a process before Shabbat or may initiate it on the eve of Shabbat to continue on its own, with Beit Hillel permitting such initiation in the cases discussed there, providing the underpinning for the shvisas keilim leniency.
Maamar Mordechai (Chelek 1 7:4) rules directly that it is permitted to set a Shabbat timer (שעון שבת) before Shabbat so that it will activate lighting or an air conditioner on Shabbat, consistent with the absence of any shvisas keilim obligation.
Maamar Mordechai (Chelek 5 118:46) notes the position, cited in the name of Iggerot Moshe, that using a Shabbat timer for actions that create a zilzul — a degradation of Shabbat's dignity — raises a separate concern grounded in the Torah-level obligation of kavod Shabbat, distinct from the technical shvisas keilim question, and applies this to a dishwasher operated via a timer.
Maamar Mordechai (Chelek 5 118:6) adds that while setting a mechanical spring-wound timer before Shabbat is permitted, one may not shorten or extend the timer's operation on Shabbat itself, as doing so constitutes a prohibited approximation of extinguishing or kindling, as well as a possible violation of tokeah.
שבת ק״כ ב — ד"ה אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נַנָּס
Shabbat 120b:2
Explores the status of objects and processes associated with Shabbat restrictions, contributing conceptual background to the treatment of vessels and automated activity.
The Gemara asks: Say that Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas said it is permitted to place the goat’s hide on the burning item because it singes and does not burn; did he say it is permitted to indirectly cause the fire to extinguish? The Gemara answers: Yes, Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas permitted that as well, and we learn this from that which is taught in the latter clause in the mishna: Rabbi Yosei prohibits using new earthenware vessels that are full of water, because they cannot withstand the fire and will burst and extinguish the fire. This proves by inference that the first tanna, Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas, permits it. We learned in the mishna that one may establish a barrier with all earthenware vessels, and Rabbi Yosei prohibits using new earthenware vessels. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the Rabbis hold that indirect extinguishing is permitted on Shabbat, and Rabbi Yosei holds that indirect extinguishing is prohibited? Didn’t we hear them state the opposite, as it was taught in a baraita: One may establish a barrier with empty vessels, and with full ones that do not typically break. And these are full vessels that do not typically break; metal vessels. Rabbi Yosei says: Even earthenware vessels from the village of Shiḥin and vessels from the village of Ḥananya do not typically break. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is more lenient than the opinions of the Rabbis. And if you say: Reverse the attribution of opinions in the mishna and attribute Rabbi Yosei’s opinion to the Rabbis, and say that Rabbi Yosei is saying his statement in the baraita in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, although he himself disagrees and permits using all vessels. But can you reverse the mishna? Didn’t Rabba bar Taḥalifa say in the name of Rav: Who is the tanna who teaches that indirect extinguishing is prohibited? It is Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara asks: If so, here too, with regard to Shabbat, it is written: “And the seventh day is Shabbat for the Lord your God, you shall not perform any labor” (Exodus 20:9). And here, too, one could derive: Performance is that which is prohibited; indirectly causing a prohibited action is permitted. The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Yosei maintains there is no prohibition in indirectly causing a fire to be extinguished; however, since a person is agitated about his property, if you permit him to indirectly extinguish the fire, he will come to extinguish it directly.
The central Talmudic sugya for shvisat keilim: the Mishnah records disputes over placing work in or upon one's vessels before Shabbat, and the Gemara analyzes the scope of the prohibition.
The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One may open a canal that passes adjacent to a garden on Shabbat eve at nightfall, so that water will flow into a garden and the garden continuously fills with water all day long on Shabbat. Similarly, one may place incense, perfumed herbs placed on coals to produce a fragrance, on coals beneath the clothes on Shabbat eve and the clothes may be continuously perfumed all day long. And, similarly, one may place sulfur beneath the silver vessels on Shabbat eve at nightfall for the purpose of coloring the vessels, and they may be continuously exposed to sulfur all day long. And one may place an eye salve [kilor] on the eye and a bandage [ispelanit] smeared with cream on a wound on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and the wound may continuously heal all day long on Shabbat. However, one may not place wheat kernels into the water mill unless he does so in a way so that they will be ground while it is still day on Friday and not on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the baraita prohibited a mill and permitted other prohibited labor? Rabba said: Because it makes noise and the public will hear the mill grinding on Shabbat. Although no prohibited labor is being performed, doing so displays contempt for Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages prohibited it. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: And let the Master say a better reason, due to the obligation to ensure the resting of utensils. Even the utensils of a Jewish person may not be used for prohibited labor on Shabbat. As it was taught in halakhic midrash, the Mekhilta: That which is stated: “And in all that I said to you, take heed” (Exodus 23:13), is an allusion to matters mentioned in the Oral Torah. It comes to include the resting of utensils on Shabbat. Rather, Rav Yosef said: The reason for the prohibition of the mill on Shabbat is due to the resting of utensils. Since the obligation of resting utensils on Shabbat was mentioned, the Gemara says: Now that you said that Beit Hillel also hold that resting utensils on Shabbat is required by Torah law, with regard to sulfur and incense on coals that are placed under silver vessels and clothes, respectively, what is the reason that the Sages permitted this on Shabbat? Isn’t that performed on Shabbat in utensils? The Gemara answers: Because the utensil itself does not perform an action when the incense or sulfur is burning. With regard to the bundles of flax, what is the reason that they permitted placing them in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall to dry, even though the oven is performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat? Because it does not perform an action; rather, on the contrary, it sits idle in its place and the prohibited labor occurs on its own. However, with regard to traps of an animal, and a bird, and a fish, which perform a bona fide action of trapping, what is the reason that they permitted spreading them on Shabbat eve at nightfall? The Gemara explains: There too, it is referring to a fish hook and nets [kokrei], which perform no action. They stand in place, and the fish comes to them and is trapped. Indeed, a trap that performs an action is prohibited.
This passage is in Aramaic and discusses resurrection of the dead, divine sustenance, and judgment—it contains no substantive discussion of Shabbat prohibitions, timers, grama, boneh, or shvisas keilim.
שבת י״ט — ד"ה כּוּתָּח הַבַּבְלִי וְכׇל מִינֵי כּוּתָּח אָסוּר
Shabbat 19:1
Beit Shammai issued decrees prohibiting certain Shabbat eve preparations that would incur a sin-offering if performed on Shabbat itself, but did not decree against loading olive press beams and wine press wheels since performing those on Shabbat would not incur liability; the passage attributes the principle that something occurring naturally (not from deliberate action) may be done on Shabbat to Rabbi Yishmael, citing his opinion that one may continue tending crushed garlic, unripe grapes, and wheat stalks after nightfall as they release liquid under weight, whereas Rabbi Akiva prohibits this, and Rabbi Elazar sides with Rabbi Elazar the tanna who permits honeycomb that flows out on its own.
We learned in the mishna that these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that one may load the beam of the olive press and the circular wine press. The Gemara asks: What is different about all of the cases in the mishna, where Beit Shammai issued a decree prohibiting them, and what is different about the beams of the olive press and the circular wine press that Beit Shammai did not issue a decree prohibiting them? The Gemara answers: Those cases, where if he performed them on Shabbat he is rendered liable to bring a sin-offering, Beit Shammai issued a decree prohibiting them on Shabbat eve at nightfall. However, in the cases of the beams of the olive press and the circular wine press, where even if he performed them on Shabbat he is not rendered liable to bring a sin-offering, Beit Shammai did not issue a decree. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that anything that comes on its own, and not as the result of an action, it may well be done on Shabbat? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to the garlic and the unripe grapes, and the stalks of wheat that he crushed while it was still day, Rabbi Yishmael says: He may continue tending to them and finish after it gets dark, as after the crushing is completed these items are placed beneath a weight, so that the liquids will continue to seep out. And Rabbi Akiva says: He may not finish. And the amora Rabbi Elazar said: Our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar the tanna. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to honeycombs that he crushed on Shabbat eve and the honey came out on its own on Shabbat day, it is prohibited to eat the honey, like anything that was prepared on Shabbat. And Rabbi Elazar permits eating it on Shabbat.
Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute whether one may initiate actions on Shabbat eve that will continue into Shabbat itself: Beit Shammai permit only if the action will be substantially completed before Shabbat begins, while Beit Hillel permit the action even if completion will occur on Shabbat.
MISHNA: In this mishna there is a fundamental dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai: Must one begin refraining from actions prohibited on Shabbat on Shabbat eve? Or, may one initiate an action prior to Shabbat, even if he knows that it will continue on its own on Shabbat itself? These are the details of that dispute: Beit Shammai say: One may only soak dry ink in water and dry plants, which produce dyes, in water and vetch for animal food to soften them in water on Shabbat eve, adjacent to Shabbat, if there is clearly sufficient time for them to soak for their designated purpose while it is still day, before Shabbat begins, and their continued soaking on Shabbat will have no effect. And Beit Hillel permit doing so. Beit Shammai say: One may only place bundles of combed flax inside the oven on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time so that they will be heated while it is still day. And one may only place wool into the dyer’s kettle if there is sufficient time for the wool to absorb the dye while it is still day. And Beit Hillel permit doing so. Beit Shammai say: One may spread traps for an animal and birds and fish only if there is sufficient time remaining in the day for them to be trapped in them while it is still day, and Beit Hillel permit doing so even if there is not sufficient time remaining in the day. Beit Shammai say: One may only sell an item to a gentile on Shabbat eve, and one may only load a burden on his donkey with him, and one may only lift a burden on him if there remains sufficient time for the gentile to arrive to a near place prior to Shabbat, and the Jew will play no role in the performance of a prohibited labor by the gentile on Shabbat. And Beit Hillel permit doing so. Beit Shammai say: One may not give skins to a gentile tanner, nor clothes to a gentile launderer, unless there is sufficient time for work on them to be completed while it is still day, before Shabbat begins. And in all of them Beit Hillel permit doing so with
The mishna lists those liable for primary categories of labor on Shabbat, including one who builds, dismantles, extinguishes, kindles, or strikes with a hammer; Rabba and Rabbi Zeira both teach that anyone who performs an action on Shabbat containing an element of completion of work is liable for the labor of striking with a hammer.
We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who builds and one who dismantles; one who extinguishes and one who kindles; and one who strikes a blow with a hammer. With regard to the labor of striking a blow with a hammer, it is Rabba and Rabbi Zeira who both stated a principle: One who performs any action on Shabbat that contains an element of completion of work is liable for the labor of striking a blow with a hammer.
Rava explains that Rabbi Eliezer holds preparations for a mitzva override Shabbat prohibitions, yet concedes that to the extent a procedure can be altered to avoid violating a Torah prohibition, it should be altered; the baraita exemplifies this by permitting a priest's fellow to bite off his wart on Shabbat (with teeth, not an instrument, and performed by another, not himself) to emphasize Shabbat's sanctity, even though Rabbi Eliezer would normally hold one liable for such acts.
Rava stated a different resolution of the contradiction between the two mishnayot: The mishna which permits the cutting of a wart, is according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said that the preparations for the performance of a mitzva override the prohibitions of Shabbat, and it is therefore permitted to cut the wart by hand. And if you say that in that case one should be permitted to do so with an instrument as well, Rabbi Eliezer concedes that as much as it is possible to alter the manner in which a procedure is performed to prevent violation of a Torah prohibition, we alter it, to emphasize that the day is Shabbat. What is the source for this idea? As it was taught in a baraita: If a priest grew a wart, which temporarily disqualifies him from performing the service, his fellow priest may cut it off for him on Shabbat with his teeth. The Gemara infers: With his teeth, yes, this is permitted; but with an instrument, no, he may not do so. Likewise, for his fellow priest, yes, he may cut off his wart; but he himself, no, he may not cut off his own wart. Rather, wasn’t it taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that in general one is liable to bring a sin-offering for biting off his own nails or wart? And here, even though he maintains that preparations for a mitzva override the prohibitions of Shabbat, and it should therefore be permitted for him to cut off his own wart with an instrument, nevertheless, as much as it is possible to alter the procedure so that it does not entail the violation of a Torah prohibition, one alters, and biting off another person’s wart is prohibited due to rabbinic decree, not Torah law.
משנה תורה, שבת פרק א א והלאה ג א והלאה, וראה שם עוד ופרק ד
Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 3:4
Discusses placing a cooked food or similar process before Shabbat so that it continues through Shabbat, an early codified source for shvisat keilim principles.
Defines the melakhah of building and includes the conceptual basis for constructing or completing a functional entity; often discussed in relation to completing an electrical circuit.
Sets out a codified framework for acts that create a durable result, useful as a comparative source for the claim that closing a circuit may constitute a prohibited constructive act.
A person is liable for building even the slightest amount. A person who levels the floor inside a house is liable. Whether he lowers a raised piece of earth or fills a cavity, he is considered to be building and is liable.
The passage discusses the interpretation of the word "orot" in the context of gathering: some explain it as a grain called "orga" that brightens the eyes, while others interpret "orot" as vegetables, as in the phrase "like bright heat upon vegetation.
משנה ברורה של״ח — ד"ה (טו) ולהכינו מבע"י - אבל בשבת
Mishnah Berurah 338:15
Clarifies the scope of the restrictions in this siman and the distinctions between direct Shabbat action and an automatically continuing process.
(טו) ולהכינו מבע"י - אבל בשבת לא מיבעיא דאם עמד דאסור להכינו שילך ואפילו רק בנענוע חוט הברזל שמתנענע ויש בזה איסור תורה לכמה פוסקים דהוי בכלל תיקון מנא אלא אפילו בעודו הולך אסור ג"כ למשוך המשקלות [או בטאשי"ן אוה"ר חוט המושך הגלגלים] שלא יפסוק הלוכו אם לא לצורך חולה הצריך לכך יש להתיר להעריכו בעודו הולך אם בקושי למצוא אינו יהודי לזה וע"י א"י יש להתיר להעריכו לצורך חולה אפילו כשנפסק הילוכו [אחרונים]. ודע עוד דאותן מורי שעות [שקורין טאשי"ן אוה"ר] שרגיל לפעמים כשעומד ונפסק מהלוכו הוא מנענעו במקצת וחוזר להלוכו צריך ליזהר שלא לנענעו בשבת:
שבט הלוי, ח״ד סי׳ י״בscanFiled under: זוג המקשקש לשעות: מורה השעות שעשוי להשמיע קול להודיע השעות
שבט הלוי, ח״ג סי׳ צ״זscanFiled under: זוג המקשקש לשעות: מורה השעות שעשוי להשמיע קול להודיע השעות
אגרות משה, או"ח ב׳:שי״דscanFiled under: זוג המקשקש לשעות: מורה השעות שעשוי להשמיע קול להודיע השעות
Source 15 · Acharonim
Verified
Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 252
שולחן ערוך, אורח חיים רנ״ב — ד"ה ומות' לפתוח מים לגנה והם נמשכים
Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 252:5
The governing siman on leaving work arranged before Shabbat so that it continues on Shabbat, including the laws of starting processes before Shabbat and the rabbinic concern of mar'it ayin in certain cases.
ומות' לפתוח מים לגנה והם נמשכים והולכים בכל השבת ולהניח קילור [סם של רפואה שנותנים על העין] עבה על העין אע"פ שאסור להניחו בשבת ולתת מוגמר תחת הכלים והם מתגמרים מאליהם כל השבת ואפי' מוגמר מונח בכלי דאין אדם מצווה על שביתת כלים ולתת שעורים בגיגית לשרותן וטוענין בקורות בית הבד והגת מבעוד יום על זיתים וענבים והשמן והיין היוצא מהן מותר [וע"ל סי' ש"כ סעיף ב'] וכן בוסר ומלילות שריסקן מבע"י מותרים המשקים היוצאים מהם ומותר לתת חטים לתוך רחיים של מים סמוך לחשיכ': הגה ולא חיישי' להשמעת קול שיאמרו רחיים של פלוני טוחנות בשבת ויש אוסרים ברחיים ובכל מקום שיש לחוש להשמעת קול (טור ותוס' והרא"ש פ"ג דשבת וסמ"ג וסה"ת והגהות מיי' פ"ז ותשובת מהרי"ו סימן ק"ל ואגור) והכי נהוג לכתחלה מיהו במקום פסידא יש להקל כמו שנתבאר לעיל ס"ס רמ"ד. ומותר להעמיד כלי משקולת שקורין זייגר מע"ש אע"פ שמשמיע קול להודיע השעות בשבת כי הכל יודעים שדרכן להעמידו מאתמול (טור אגור) ועיין לקמן סי' של"ח:
It is permitted to open water to the garden and the water will continue and flow all of Shabbat. It is permitted to put קילור, thick collyrium (salve) on the eye even though it is forbidden to put it on on Shabbat. It is permitted to perfume one’s clothes when the process of perfuming is continued all of Shabbat, even if the perfume is placed in a vessel, since one is not commanded to rest his vessels. It is permitted to put barley in a tub to soak, and to load the beams of the olive press or wine press while it is still day upon the olives or the grapes, and the oil or wine that comes from them is permitted [And see Siman 320 Seif 2]. Similarly, if unripe grapes or ears are mashed while it is still day, it is permitted to drink that which comes forth from it. It is permitted to put wheat in a water mill near dark. Rema: And we do not worry to the sound of the voices of those who say 'the mill of this person is grinding on Shabbat'. There are those who forbid regarding mills and in any place that there is a worry about listening to the sound (Tur; Tosefos; Rosh; Sma"g; Hagahos Maimoni; Teshuvos Mahari"v; Agur) and this is our custom initially. However in a place of loss there are those who are lenient as as explained above at the end of Siman 244. One may place a keli of a weight called זייגר from Erev Shabbat even though he hears a voice announcing the hours of Shabbat, because everyone knows that it is their way to place it there from yesterday (Tur Agur) and see below Seif 338
Explains the practical parameters of beginning work before Shabbat and when an activity may continue automatically into Shabbat; it is an important companion to the governing siman.
(מח) ובכל מקום - כלל בזה כל כיוצא בזה המשמיע קול דאוושא מילתא ואיכא זילותא לשבתא וכמו שכתב בד"מ ואם הריחיים של א"י בודאי שרי לתת לתוכה מבעוד יום וה"ה אם השכירו לא"י ואם הישראל מסר לא"י התבואה מבעוד יום אז אף אם הא"י טוחן אותם בשבת שרי בקצץ דא"י אדעתיה דנפשיה עביד רק שלא יעמוד ישראל אצלו דמחזי כשלוחו כמ"ש סוף סימן ש"ז ולצורך הפסח מותר לישראל להיות עומד שם לראות שלא יתחמץ וכן מותר להושיב שומר שלא יגנוב הא"י ובלבד שלא ידבר עמו בשום עסק וכמו שכתבנו לעיל בסוף סימן רמ"ד [אחרונים]: (מט) במקום פסידא וכו' - הטעם דאז יכול לסמוך אדעה ראשונה שמקלת ליתן מבע"י אבל בשבת אסור ליתן אפילו ע"י א"י ואפילו הוא שכירו ועיין לעיל בסימן רמ"ג במ"ב סק"י דיעשה שטר מכירה לא"י דהוא מוכרו לו על שבת: (נ) כי הכל יודעים וכו' - ולא יחשדוהו שהעמידו בשבת והנה מוכח כאן דאסור להעמידו בשבת ואפילו לומר לא"י להעמידו בשבת וכונתו לשם מצוה לידע זמן ק"ש ותפלה ג"כ צ"ע דאפשר דיש בו מלאכה ד"ת ולא הותר ע"י א"י אפילו במקום מצוה [פמ"ג ע"ש שהאריך עוד] ועיין לקמן בסימן של"ח במ"ב מה שנכתוב בזה:
On this pageThis page contains the end of Siman 36 and the very beginning of Siman 37 (Ot 1), which discusses the Talmudic definition of a 'tinok' (infant) on Shabbat. The cited passage of Siman 37, Ot 10, which discusses electrical circuits and boneh, occurs further in the chapter and is not present on this page.
Page 102
Chazon Ish is not freely available in text. This PDF surfaced in our research. Please use the feedback buttons below to help us improve.
recovered from “Shulchan Arukh HaRav, Orach Chayim 252:15”
Shulchan Arukh HaRav, Orach Chayim
שולחן ערוך הרב, אורח חיים רנ״ב
Shulchan Arukh HaRav, Orach Chayim 252
One may place a heated metal vessel under clothes on top of coals before nightfall, and it continues warming throughout Shabbat even if the vessel and coals are in a container, because a person has no obligation to ensure that his vessels do not perform work on their own on Shabbat—even when the vessel itself is the one performing the action, such as traps set before Shabbat that catch animals or birds during Shabbat.
The author addresses whether one may set up before Shabbat or Yom Tov an automated telephone system with a tape recorder that plays pre-recorded instructions to enable gentile clients to buy or sell stock based on price triggers, and concludes that the permissibility of such a device remains unresolved in his judgment.
אחד תיקן בביזנעס שלו מכשיר כזה עם טייפ והוא מכין הטייפ לפני יום טוב והגוי שקונה אז מוכר את המניות שלו מטלפון והקול בא מהטייפ שהכין מלפני יום טוב ושומע אם המניות עלו למחיר זה מכור, ואם המניות עלו למחיר זה תקנה. ובשבת ג"כ יש שעושים כזה, ונשאלתי אם מותר לתקן כלי כזה והדבר עדיין בספק אצלי ולא נתברר עדיין
On this pageThe author discusses a query regarding a business owner who sets up an automated telephone-recording system before Shabbat or Yom Tov, which automatically processes stock transactions for gentile clients based on pre-recorded instructions. The author concludes that the halachic permissibility of setting up such an automated system remains an unresolved doubt for him.
Page 466
Revavos Ephraim is not freely available in text. This PDF surfaced in our research. Please use the feedback buttons below to help us improve.
The passage asserts that there is ground for concern regarding the prohibition of boneh in relation to this matter, citing a precedent for obligating one under boneh in similar cases, and references a source regarding the prohibition as applied to turning on electricity on Shabbat, noting that the author saw this discussed in the journal HaMayin from Cheshvan-Tevet 5718 where Rabbi David Grass wrote about the prohibition.
א־כ יש מקום לחשוש בזה משום איסור בונה, ובדומה למד. שמצינו להחזו־א ז׳ל שכתב בדומה לזה לחייב משום בונד. לגבי הדלקת חשמל כשבת, וכיוצא בזה, כידוע. וכה ראיתי בירחון 'המעין' חשון־טבת תשי׳ח שהרב ר׳ דוד גראס כותב על אודות איסור
On this pageThe passage asserts that there is ground for concern regarding the prohibition of boneh in relation to this matter, citing a precedent for obligating one under boneh in similar cases, and references a source regarding the prohibition as applied to turning on electricity on Shabbat, noting that the author saw this discussed in the journal HaMayin from Cheshvan-Tevet 5718 where Rabbi David Grass wrote about the prohibition.
Page 52
Tzitz Eliezer is not freely available in text. This PDF surfaced in our research. Please use the feedback buttons below to help us improve.
Electricity turning off at a fixed time on Shabbat is considered grama and lacks a Torah prohibition when addressing the shutoff itself, but there is a Torah prohibition of boneh insofar as closing the circuit constitutes a repair or construction of the device, a form of building that applies to vessels as well as to fixed structures.
החשמל בשבת בשביל שיכבה לזמן ידוע חשיב גרמא ואין בו איסור דאורייתא - וכל זה כשאנו באין לדון על הכיבוי, אבל יש כאן איסור תורה משום בונה כיון דבשליבתו הוא עושה תיקון בנין וכה״ג יש בנין בכלים וכש״ב במחובר, עכ״ל. ולכאורה נראה
On this pageElectricity turning off at a fixed time on Shabbat is considered grama and lacks a Torah prohibition when addressing the shutoff itself, but there is a Torah prohibition of boneh insofar as closing the circuit constitutes a repair or construction of the device, a form of building that applies to vessels as well as to fixed structures.
Page 131
Minchas Shlomo is not freely available in text. This PDF surfaced in our research. Please use the feedback buttons below to help us improve.
One source views that moving a timer or electrical switch on Shabbat itself presents a separate prohibition due to muktzeh and concern about creating a basis for the forbidden melacha, and another source holds that permissibility depends on whether movement is permitted from Friday night onward, citing a machlokes on this matter.
יש בזד. עיכוב מצד אחר, שהרי אמור לעשות בשבת איזה־ נענוע של טלטול בהשעון או בכפתורי החשמל משום מוקצה ובסיס לדבר האסור, עיין בשו*ע )סי׳ רע*ט סעי׳ א׳(. י ל ה ת גו ת תנאי מע״ש שיהא מותר לטלטל משכיבת ' הרי תלוי זה בפלוגתת
On this pageOne source views that moving a timer or electrical switch on Shabbat itself presents a separate prohibition due to muktzeh and concern about creating a basis for the forbidden melacha, and another source holds that permissibility depends on whether movement is permitted from Friday night onward, citing a machlokes on this matter.
Page 96
Tzitz Eliezer is not freely available in text. This PDF surfaced in our research. Please use the feedback buttons below to help us improve.
Shabbat 23aunverifiedFiled under: Kosher Oil, Wicks, and Candles for Chanuka
Source 24 · Modern
External
Shevet HaLevi 9:51
שבט הלוי, ח״ט סי׳ נ״א
Shevet HaLevi 9:51
The author considers whether a heating system with individual gas boilers in each apartment may be left running on low before Shabbat, and discusses the application of the rabbinic restriction against leaving adjustable heat sources due to concern one might stoke them on Shabbat, while tending toward stringency; he also analyzes whether placing a covered electric stove with food on it before Shabbat and having a timer turn it on during Shabbat avoids the prohibitions of shehiyah and shema yachateh by examining whether such a stove qualifies as properly swept or covered.
יקרתכם קבלתי לנכון, ואשר קבעתם לי שני ענינים שנתחדש בזמננו לחימום הבית אשר ההסקה פרטית לכל דירה ודירה, ויש דוד מים בכל דירה ששם המים מתחממים על ידי גז
On this pageThe author addresses a contemporary apartment heating system that utilizes individual gas boilers connected to radiators. He discusses whether it is permissible to leave the system running on a low setting from before Shabbat, considering the rabbinic restriction against leaving items that might tempt one to adjust (stoke) the heat on Shabbat (שמא יחתה), and expresses a tendency to rule stringently. The author discusses the halachic permissibility of placing a food-filled pot before Shabbat onto a covered electric stove that will be turned on during Shabbat by a timer. He analyzes whether a covered electric stove is halachically considered swept or covered (kureh u-ketumah) and if using a timer avoids the prohibitions of shehiyah and shema yachateh.
Page 38
Shevet HaLevi is not freely available in text. This PDF surfaced in our research. Please use the feedback buttons below to help us improve.
The author permits setting an electric timer to turn off lights before Shabbat, viewing this as an indirect act of causation (grama) rather than a direct extinguishing on Shabbat itself.
וגם לפ"ז נראה להתיר שיעמיד השעון-של-החשמל המכוון על הכיבוי, קודם הערכת השעון
On this pageThe author discusses the permissibility of setting or adjusting an electric timer (Shabbat clock) to turn off lights on Shabbat. He rules that setting the timer beforehand, or having a non-Jew adjust it before the trigger mechanism activates, is permitted because it is not considered an immediate act of extinguishing on Shabbat but rather a removal of a barrier (גרמא). The author analyzes the halachic implications of using a Shabbos clock (timer) to control electricity on Shabbos. He discusses whether triggering an action via a timer is considered a direct act (כח ראשון) or an indirect, permissible act of causation (גרמא), drawing comparisons to Talmudic principles of damage caused by wind or indirect forces.
Page 355
Minchas Yitzchak is not freely available in text. This PDF surfaced in our research. Please use the feedback buttons below to help us improve.
The passage discusses three questions: whether an automatic timer set before Shabbat to turn on electricity is permissible, whether electric lights may be used for Shabbat and Chanukah candles, and whether one can fulfill obligations such as hearing the Megillah, answering Kaddish, or prayer via telephone or radio; the author rejects leniencies regarding timers (arguing they do not constitute permitted indirect action since the physical chain of action begins immediately), raises concerns about electric light filaments being halachically equivalent to invalid torches, and opposes fulfilling obligations through electronic transmission on grounds that such devices do not convey a direct human voice.
ע״ד העמדת שעון האוטומטי מע״ש שידליק החשמל בשבת. ב. ע״ד הדלקת נרות שבת וחנוכה על נרות חשמל. ג. אם אפשר לצאת ידי קריאת המגילה וכן ע״ד עניית אמן קדיש וברכו ותפלה דרך הטלפון והרדיו
On this pageIn Siman 19, the author addresses three questions: setting an automatic timer before Shabbat to operate electricity, using electric lights for Shabbat and Hanukkah candles, and fulfilling obligations like hearing the Megillah or answering Kaddish via telephone and radio. On this page, he argues against leniencies regarding Shabbat timers, rejecting the claim that they constitute a permitted indirect action (gerama) since the physical chain of action begins immediately. The author analyzes the halachic status of delayed actions set in motion before Shabbat (such as timers), comparing it to setting a timed bomb which clearly attributes the resulting action to the instigator. He reviews classical responsa discussing whether delayed automated operations on Shabbat fall under permissive categories like 'shneim she'asuha' or remain prohibited, referencing his own extensive writings on the topic. The passage discusses whether electric light can be used for Shabbat and Chanukah candles, raising a concern that the curved filament makes it halachically equivalent to a torch (אבוקה), which is invalid. It also strongly opposes the ruling that one can fulfill the obligation of hearing Megillah, Kaddish, or Kedusha via telephone or radio, arguing that electronic transmission lacks the halachic status of hearing a human voice. The passage discusses the invalidity of fulfilling halachic obligations such as prayer, Megillah reading, or blessings by hearing them broadcasted through a radio or telephone. It argues that these devices do not convey a direct human voice, but rather a mechanical reproduction, which does not suffice for fulfilling these obligations.
Page 63
Tzitz Eliezer is not freely available in text. This PDF surfaced in our research. Please use the feedback buttons below to help us improve.
מאמר מרדכי הלכות שבת, Chelek 5 קי״ח:מ״ו — ד"ה וכן יש לאסור הפעלת מדיח ע"י
Maamar Mordechai Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 5 118:46
One opinion holds that activating a dishwasher via a Shabbat timer should be prohibited because it constitutes degradation of Shabbat, and cites the Igrot Moshe's reasoning regarding cooking on Shabbat by timer: performing an action that degrades Shabbat violates the Torah obligation of honoring Shabbat (kavod Shabbat), which the Rambam derives from the prophetic interpretation of the verse regarding oneg and kavod Shabbat, such that even if the act is not technically within rabbinic decrees, one still transgresses the positive commandment of kavod Shabbat through deed, and because degradation is self-evidently wrong, it is prohibited to set a timer before Shabbat to perform electrical work the following day.
וכן יש לאסור הפעלת מדיח ע"י שעון שבת משום דאיכא זילותא דשבת. ועיין באגרות משה (ח"ד סי' ס') שכתב ביחס לבישול בשבת ע"י שעון שבת, וז"ל: "גם פשוט לעניות דעתי דעושה דבר שהוא זילותא לשבת הוא עובר בידים על חיוב הכבוד שמשמע שהוא ג"כ חיוב התורה שנתפרשו ע"י הנביאים, שכתב הרמב"ם (ריש פרק ל' מהלכות שבת): 'ארבעה דברים נאמרו בשבת, שנים מן התורה ושנים מדברי סופרים והן מפורשין על ידי הנביאים. שבתורה: זכור ושמור, ושנתפרשו על ידי הנביאים: כבוד ועונג, שנאמר: וקראת לשבת עונג ולקדוש ה' מכובד', שלא כתב שתיקנו הנביאים משמע שהוא מדאורייתא ולשון מדברי סופרים הוא כדרך הרמב"ם שקרי לכל דבר שלא מפורש בתורה דברי סופרים אף שהוא מדאורייתא… וכן הוא חיוב הכבוד לשבת שהוא מהלכה ונתפרשו ע"י הנביאים בקרא, והרמב"ם (שם ה"ב) פירש המעשים המחוייבים לעשות לכבוד השבת, וממילא מובן דהדברים שעשייתן הוא זילותא לשבת הוא ג"כ עובר על מצוה זו דכבוד שבת ועוד גרוע דהרי עובר זה במעשה, שלכן אף שנימא שאינו בכלל הגזירות דחכמים, אבל גם בלא צורך הוא עובר במעשה על חיוב כבוד השבת, וזה שהוא זילותא הוא דבר שמובן לכל שלכן מסתבר לעניות דעתי שאסור להעמיד בע"ש ע"י מורה שעות שיעשה העלעקטרי למחר מלאכה".
מאמר מרדכי הלכות שבת, Chelek 5 קי״ח:ל״ט — ד"ה ובשו"ת בית יצחק
Maamar Mordechai Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 5 118:39
The Beit Yitzhak rules that turning on electricity on Shabbat is forbidden by rabbinic law as molid (generating something new), since closing an electrical circuit creates electrical force, comparable to generating a scent in a garment; the Maor Eliyahu elaborates that even without actual flame, electricity appears and operates as a light-creating force and thus resembles creating something new, which is prohibited since it looks like making a new object.
ובשו"ת בית יצחק (במפתחות ח"ב סי' ל"א) כתב לגבי הדלקת חשמל בשבת ש"יש לאסור משום דע"י סגירת זרם החשמל נולד כח חשמל וזה אסור בשבת, דכמו בסחופא כסא אשיראי אמרינן בביצה כ"ג דאסור משום דמוליד ריחא, ה"ה דאסור לעשות חיבור חשמלי בשבת". כלומר שכל האיסור הוא מדרבנן משום מוליד ואין איסורו מהתורה, וכן ביאר במאורי אש בסוף פ"ב, וז"ל: "אמנם נראה דהאמת יורה דרכו דאף אם אין בו שלהבת כלל, מכל מקום חשיב נולד גמור, כיון שהוא נהפך לגמרי מגוף חשוך לגוף מאיר, וחשיב טפי נולד מהולדת ריח בבגד דאסור משום דדמי לעושה בגד חדש וכו' לדעת רש"י ורע"ב שכתבו דטעמא דמוליד אסור הוא משום דדמי או מיחזי כאילו עושה דבר חדש א"כ הכא נמי כאן אף אם האמת הוא שאין בו שלהבת כלל אבל עכ"פ כיון שהוא נראה לנו כשלהבת ממש אית ביה שפיר טעמא דמחזי כאילו עושה דבר חדש ואסור".
אוצרות הראי"ה, Volume 6 ב׳:ד׳ — ד"ה בדין גורם בערב שבת לכיבוי בשבת
Otzrot HaRaayah, Volume 6, Part א 2:4
When an automatic timer is set before Shabbos to extinguish a flame, the extinguishing is classified as an indirect cause (garam l'garam) rather than a direct act, since the timer merely prevents additional fuel from being supplied and the flame extinguishes as a result; therefore all authorities permit preparing such a timer before Shabbos, as it does not constitute actual extinguishing but rather causes a cause of extinguishing on Shabbos.
הנה כפי המבואר (שבת מז ):דרבנן ורבי יוסי סבירא להון שלא יתן מים לתוך כלי לקבל נצוצות אפילו בערב-שבת, ואין צורך לומר בשבת, ומזה מבואר דכולי עלמא סבירא להו דגרם כיבוי אסור אפילו בערב שבת ומכל שכן בשבת, ואם כן, היכי אנן מתירין להכין מורה-שעות (זייגער בלע"ז) אפילו מערב שבת,והא גרם כיבוי כזה, לכולי עלמא אסור אפילו בערב-שבת? וכמובן! ותשובת הרב הגאון זכר צדיק לברכה הנ"ל היתה לומר דגרם כיבוי על-ידי הכנת המורה-שעות (זייגער בלע"ז) בערב-שבת אינו גורם ממש להדיא. כי אם בגדר גורם לגורם. וטעמא דמלתא, דאפילו בכיבוי המאור גז ממש, אינה בסוג כיבוי להשלהבת ממש, כי-אם הוא גורם שלא תוסיף עוד טפי גז ממש ועל ידי זה דלא תוסיף להטיף טפי גז, ממילא השלהבת נכבה מאליו, ושוב לפי זה, במורה שעות, לכולי עלמא מותר,כי זה אינו כלל בגדר מכבה ממש,כי אם גורם מערב שבת לגרם כיבוי בשבת.
מאמר מרדכי הלכות שבת, Chelek 5 קי״ח:ו׳ — ד"ה וכמה טעמים לדבר
Maamar Mordechai Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 5 118:6
The passage cites three reasons to prohibit adjusting an electric timer before Shabbat: kiruv kibuiy (approaching extinguishing), tokeah (striking/forcefully activating, especially into something connected to the ground), and muktzah; and establishes the principle "a hand may not touch it" regarding such timers; however, a mechanical spring-wound timer (found in ovens, etc.) that is wound before Shabbat and releases power to complete its cycle at a preset time is permitted, since the spring's force—not Shabbat-day action—drives the mechanism to its conclusion.
וכמה טעמים לדבר: א. קירוב כיבוי – אסור לקצר את פעולת שעון השבת, כיון שיש בכך קירוב כיבוי וכן אסור להאריך את זמן הדלקתו . ב. משום תוקע, ובפרט שהוא תוקע בדבר שמחובר לקרקע. ג. מוקצה. וכלל נקוט בידינו לגבי שעון שבת: "לא תיגע בו יד".
שעון שבת מכני-קפיצי
מותר להשתמש בשעון מכני קפיצי (מצוי בתנורי אפייה וכדו'), ולכוונו מערב שבת, דהיינו: שעון עם קפיץ שנמתח בערב שבת ומאפשר אספקת חשמל ובכוח מתיחה זו מסתובב והולך עד לזמן קבוע מראש, וכשנגמר כוח המתיחה מפסיק להסתובב ומנתק את אספקת החשמל.
[הערה 7] בבאור טעמי האיסור ראה בהרחבה לעיל פרק ק"י סעי' מ"א ובהערות שם.
מאמר מרדכי הלכות שבת, Chelek 4 פ״ג:י׳ — ד"ה מתג חשמל אסור ללחוץ על מתג
Maamar Mordechai Hilchot Shabbat, Chelek 4 83:10
Pressing an electrical switch is prohibited both when current flows through the wires and when electricity is disconnected via a Shabbat timer, for several reasons: the switch is muktze, having been designated for that status from before Shabbat; and pressing a wall switch violates the biblical prohibition of tokea (driving a wedge/completing a connection), since one is joining or separating two objects.
אסור ללחוץ על מתג חשמל, בין בזמן שהחשמל עובר בחוטי החשמל ובין בזמן שהחשמל מנותק על ידי שעון שבת וכדו', מכמה טעמים: מוקצה – כיון שהמתג היה מוקצה בין השמשות ואיתקצאי לכולי יומא. בלחיצה על המתג שבקיר יש איסור תוקע מדאורייתא, כיוון שמחבר שני דברים או מפריד שני דברים.
Offers a contemporary practical framework for lights and indirect or unusual activation methods, with attention to cases of need and the difference between a true shinui, grama, and ordinary prohibited action.
לעומת זאת דעת הרב אויערבאך ועוד רבנים, שהדוחה את פעולת כיבוי האור דומה למי שהיה נר דולק בחדרו והרוח החלה לנשוב בחלונו עד שהנר עומד לכבות, שלכל הדעות מותר לו לסגור את החלון, ולאפשר בכך לנר להמשיך לדלוק עוד שעה ארוכה. שהואיל ולא עשה דבר בגוף הנר עצמו, אלא רק מנע מהרוח לכבותו – אין בדבר איסור. וכן מי שדוחה את פעולת שעון-השבת, אינו עושה דבר בגוף הנורה או מכשיר החשמל אלא רק מונע לזמן נוסף את פעולתו של שעון-השבת. ומכיוון שהדבר מותר, אין להחשיב את המתגים של שעון-השבת כמוקצה.
Gray Matter IV, Technology, The "Sabbath Mode" Oven Controversy
גריי מאטר ד, טכנולוגיה, הפולמוס סביב מצב שבת בתנור
Gray Matter IV, Technology, The "Sabbath Mode" Oven Controversy
The Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah permits adjusting a timer to turn on a light earlier than scheduled in cases of great need because the adjustment occurs when electricity is not flowing through the timer, analogous to a situation where the prohibited act's causative agent is absent at the moment of action.
Another application is the Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah‘s permission (13:25) to adjust certain timers to turn on a light earlier than scheduled in case of great need. Once again, since the electricity is not flowing when the timer is adjusted, it is comparable to the sun not being present at the time when the victim is tied up.
Gray Matter IV, Technology, The Prohibition of Turning On Electric Lights on Shabbat and Yom Tov
The Chazon Ish prohibits completing an electric circuit as a Torah-level boneh, comparing it to assembling durable appliances or creating a new vessel, while Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach disputes this, arguing that regularly reversible acts like opening and closing a circuit are not boneh, analogous to opening and closing a door.
The second major approach to prohibit powering electric appliances without a heated element was articulated by the Chazon Ish (O.C. 50:9 and in letters to Rav Shlomo Zalman printed in Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:92-94). He suggests that completing an electric circuit constitutes a Torah-level prohibition of boneh (building), and, conversely, opening a circuit is an act of soteir (destroying). He argues that completing a circuit is analogous to assembling an appliance consisting of many parts (see Shabbat 57a and Shulchan Aruch O.C. 313:6), which is prohibited if one does so in a form that can last. Additionally, the Chazon Ish asserts that when one completes a circuit, he has in effect created a new vessel, since the appliance was unusable before the introduction of the current. Creating a new kli is prohibited as an act of boneh (Shabbat 102b). The Chazon Ish claims that by completing the circuit, one has brought the appliance "from death to life.” Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:11) questions these assertions of the Chazon Ish. His primary argument is that an act that is intended to be done and undone on a regular basis is not defined as boneh. Rav Shlomo Zalman sees opening and closing an electric circuit as analogous to opening and closing a door, which does not constitute boneh and undoubtedly is permissible on Shabbat (see Mishnah Berurah 313:45).
נ״ט בענין חשמל בשבת. ועי׳ חידושים וביאורים להגר״ח גרינמאן אוד״ח ח״ב. ושו״ת לבושי מרדכי מ ה ^ סי׳ כ״ה בשעה שהחשמל לא פועל אם מותר ללחח הכפתור ואסר. ובקובץ הנ״ל עמוד ס״ב העיר עליו דכיון שעשוי ר ב ב ו ת אורח חיים א פ ר י ם
שבשמירת שבת כהלכתה כתב בענין זה ועיינתי שם בפרק א׳ סעיף כ״ז ת״ל שם כירה חשמלית )המופעלת מערב החג או המחוברת לשעון שיחבר את זרם החשמל בחג( מותר לבשל עליה בחג, אבל אסור להגדיל או להקט p את מדת חומה וכו׳ שכן כל שינוי במידת
סי׳ כ׳[ שכתב דבנ׳׳ד איכא טעמא להיתרא שעושה הפעולה מחוץ לחשמל וגרע מגרמא. ומסיק להיתרא. ע״ש. ולפע׳׳ד הנכון להחמיר בזה, ואין לגרום כיבוי בשבת ע״י הזזת מחוגי השעון. ולא דמי למה שהתרנו לגרום המשכת ההדלקה. והרי הוא כמבואר.
בידיים(. עכ״ל הרב הנ״ל בתחומין. שוב העירני בני הרב מנחם שליט״א שבשמירת שבת כהלכתה כתב בענין זה ועיינתי שם בפרק א׳ סעיף כ״ז ת״ל שם כירה חשמלית )המופעלת מערב החג או המחוברת לשעון שיחבר את זרם החשמל בחג( מותר לבשל עליה בחג,
בידיים(. עכ״ל הרב הנ״ל בתחומין. שוב העירני בני הרב מנחם שליט״א שבשמירת שבת כהלכתה כתב בענין זה ועיינתי שם בפרק א׳ סעיף כ״ז ת״ל שם כירה חשמלית )המופעלת מערב החג או המחוברת לשעון שיחבר את זרם החשמל בחג( מותר לבשל עליה בחג,
בכה״ג רק איסור דרבנן. ו א פי״ ה גם בכה״ג שהי׳ דעתו שידלוק מנורת החשמל משך כמה שמות והזרם יוחזר בשבת תוך הזמן ההיא, אף שיש בזה חשש איסור דאורייתא כמבואר למיל )אית ג׳( מ״מ אסיר לו ללחוץ מל הכפתור להחזירו למקומו הראשין כדי
"מוקצה" – המתג הינו מוקצה מחמת איסור.
אסור לשנות מצב של מתג חשמלי ממצב "כבוי" ל"דלוק" ולהיפך אפילו בשעה שאין החשמל זורם ואפילו בשינוי, כיון שזה נוגע לאיסור תורה.
אסור לתקוע תקע בשקע או לנתק תקע מהשקע בשבת, אפילו בזמן שאין החשמל זורם [כגון: שנותק על ידי שעון שבת].
שעון שבת
שעון שבת לתאורה
מותר לכוון שעון שבת בערב שבת כדי שידליק ויכבה את האור בשבת בזמנים קבועים מראש.
[הערה 5] ואף החולקים על דעת החזו"א וסוברים שאין איסור תוקע וסותר בסגירת ופתיחת מעגל חשמלי, סוברים שהמתג הינו מוקצה מדין מיגו דאיתקצאי בין-השמשות, איתקצאי לכולי יומא, באופן שבבין השמשות היה החשמל פועל כך שאסור היה ללחוץ על המתג בבין השמשות וע"כ אתקצאי לכל השבת.
[הערה 6] עיין שו"ת מאמר מרדכי (ח"ד סי' ק"א), שו"ת קול אליהו (שבת פרק ד' שאלה ט').
from our library copy — not yet checked against the original
כיבוי חשמל לפני הדלקה
מן הדין אין צורך לכבות את אור החשמל לפני שמדליקים את נרות השבת, ומותר להדליק נרות שבת כאשר יש אור מסביב, בין אם זה אור החשמל ובין אם אור השמש או כל מקור אור אחר.
[הערה 19] בעניין זה: לאחרונה יש מהחסידים שנשארים בביתם בזמן הדלקת הנרות, ומכבים את אור החשמל שבבית כדי שהאשה תדליק נרות שבת בתחילה, ואחר כך הוא מדליק את אור החשמל. ויש מוצאים מקור לחומרתם בדברי הרה"ג רבי אליהו מאני בזכרונות אליהו (עמ' ק"ל אות ו') שכתב שאפשר להדליק נר שבת בפתילת גז (לוקס), אבל הוא נוהג להדליק נר לוקס לאחר שאשתו הדליקה נר שמן זית בברכה, כי אם תדליק תחילה את נר הגז – יצא ידי חובת נר שבת ולא יוכלו לברך על נר שמן זית. אך אחר העיון אין הוכחה מדברי הרה"ג מאני ז"ל כדלקמן, ועוד שעלולה להיות בזה בעיה אם יאחר הבעל לקבל שבת ויפסיד מצות "תוספת שבת", ובפרט כשהם גרים רחוק מבית הכנסת. ולכן יש לבדוק אם יש לחומרא זו שורש ויסוד בהלכה.
from our library copy — not yet checked against the original
