[Avodah] running creates electricity

[Eli Turkel via Avodah]

From
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/journal/broyde_1.htm
by Rabbis Broyde and Jachter

D. Static Electricity
Whenever it is permissible to separate (or wear) clothes on Shabbat if that
action will generate static electricity is a topic that a number of
decisors have addressed. If one adopts Rabbi Auerbach's aforementioned
lenient ruling regarding the creation of sparks during use of a circuit,
one might be lenient in this regard as well. Indeed, Rabbi Auerbach is
cited (*Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata* 15:72) as maintaining that the
unintentional creation of static electricity from clothes does not pose a
halachic problem.

Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (*Tzitz Eliezer* 7:10) rules leniently in this
regard also. Rabbi Waldenberg Argues that these sparks last hardly a moment
and have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is no precedent for these
sparks in the labor performed during the construction and functioning of
the tabernacle, and hence there is no precedent whatsoever to classify the
creation of these sparks as forbidden acts of labor. Therefore, he rules
that the unintentional creation of static electricity does not pose a
halachic problem. At the conclusion of his responsum, Rabbi Waldenberg adds
another consideration to be lenient in this regard - that one does not
intend to create the static electricity.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's primary reason to rule leniently in this matter (*Yabia
Omer* 5:27 and *Yechave Daat *2:46) is based on the lack of intent to
create the sparks. Rabbi Yosef writes that unintentional acts from which no
benefit is derived (*pesik resha delo nichah lei*) are permitted if the
underlying prohibition is itself only a rabbinic violation; he agrees that
if a biblical violation would occur, they are prohibited. This leniency is
not universally accepted.



As distinct from static electricity the new "sweaters" have the ability to
store this electricity and it is done intentionally. Hence R Waldenberg's
heter that the static electricity lasts only a second doesn't hold
Furthermore, it is now done on purpose eliminating another heter. ROY also
uses the lack of intent which is no longer relevant

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:35:46PM +0200, Lisa Liel wrote:
> : I don't see why such clothing wouldn't be muktzeh.
>
> I am inclined to agree with Zev, I don't know of an issur inherent in
> electonics itself, but what you're doing with it.
>
> I mean "electronics" in contrast to the higher-power implications had
> I written "electricity". House power may inherently raise issues: Is is
> boneh to plug in a plug? The sparking of various contacts may be pesiq
> reishei delo nicha lei in many cases. Etc... But with battery powered
> stuff, or this shirt, these issues do not arise.
>
> Assuming one can buy a garment that doesn't have an assur device, and
> is only used to charge a battery that isn't used until after Shabbos.
> If the charging is mutar, then the clothing is a keli shemelakhto leheter,
> and why would it be muqtzah?
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
> micha at aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
> http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
> Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)
>



-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161031/87d03a14/attachment-0008.html>