[Avodah] electronics on shabbat

[Akiva Miller via Avodah]

R' Micha Berger cited:

> Rambam (Shabbos 12:2) - Heating metal kedei letzarfo bemayim
> is a toladah of mav'ir and he is chayav (ie it is deOraisa)
>
> Raavad (sham) -- why wouldn't it be bishul?

In preparation for this post, I took a look at this Rambam inside. In my
edition, it is actually the very last line of 12:1. I happened to find
something interesting in the line just before it. The Rambam writes: "One
who ignites (madlik) a ner or wood, whether it is for heat or for light, he
is chayav." Offhand, I think he may be suggesting that one cannot say, "I
lit it for light, and since aish is defined by heat, this is a melacha
she'ein torach l'gufa", nor may one say "I lit it for heat, and since aish
is defined by light, this is a melacha she'ein torach l'gufa". Rather,
something is "aish" regardless of whether it is for heat or for light,
exactly as I cited Rav Heinemann. (I'm equating "aish" and "mav'ir"; if
anyone objects, please speak up.)

In any case, I am curious about what the Raavad means here. Does he mean
that heating the metal is bishul in *addition* to mav'ir, or does he mean
that it is bishul and *not* mav'ir?

Either way, what would the Rambam answer? Would the Rambam accept the idea
that heating metal violates both melachos, or would the Rambam say that
heating metal is mav'ir, and it is NOT bishul?

If the latter, then I think we can argue that light is a valid definition
of "aish". Here is my argument: Why is it that "heating metal kedei
letzarfo bemayim" is mav'ir, but heating a chicken to dry it and eat it is
*not* mav'ir? The only difference I see is that one glows and the other
does not glow. That is, production of light is the definition of mav'ir.

I could go even farther, and suggest that the production of heat without
light does NOT meet the definition of "aish". My evidence is in the
halachos of Hatmana, where certain materials do more than merely preserve
the heat of one's Shabbos food -- they are "mosif hevel", they "add heat".
We don't need to go into the details of which materials those are, or under
what conditions they might actually add heat. Suffice it to say that even
under the worst conditions, and according to the strictest views, the worst
one might say about an improper Hatmana is that it violates Bishul. I'm not
aware of anyone, under any circumstances, who would say that an improper
Hatmana would violate Mav'ir.

My conclusions? None whatsoever. I have no point that I'm trying to prove.
I just noticed some interesting things, and I'm suggesting ideas that we
might get from them. Y'all can probably poke some pretty big holes in those
ideas. Have at it!

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20161229/3162c6a3/attachment-0008.html>