July 9, 2009 7:06 pm at 7:06 pm #650747
squeak- suffice it to say that I have seen half century long ago, which, i daresay, you are still aspiring to- le-orech jomim
rob, don’t bet your car on that.July 9, 2009 7:13 pm at 7:13 pm #650748SJSinNYCMember
Squeak, you should actually be saying “There is no such psak that I am aware of.” Unless you absolutely know of every psak every given to every person in the world. There is a major difference in the statement.
There you go again with “If Oomis is going to cling to a non-existant shittoh, one which doesn’t even make sense if you understand what we permit on Y”T for oichel nefesh, then I don’t think it is ridiculing her to want that others should not accept it on her word.”
I think everyone reading this thread realizes that in your opinion her shittah is wrong. Maybe her shittah is a daas yachid (she says its not, but lets forget that for a moment). She did say that it applies to HER particular stove and from her Rav. I hope NO ONE actually takes piskei halacha from this website. There is enough debate going on that any sane person reading this thread would say “Let me ask my rav.” Your terminology however is abhorrant.July 9, 2009 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #650749gavra_at_workParticipant
I can not draw a diagram of a pilot light oven here, but what Oomis describes is #2. The fire still exists under the pan (or in the oven), just as a pilot (small) flame.July 9, 2009 7:52 pm at 7:52 pm #650750
let me bring some sanity and civility to this subejct. First- apologies to squeak or anyone else that I may have offended. Once before,on this webiste, I let my emotions get the beter of me and I resolved to be more circumspect.
i am not sure wha the Ha! fro msqueak is/was but it would be useful to look at halacha in its context.befreo you attack me,please hearken.
oomis is clearly presenting actual events of some years ago. Regradless of squek’s protestations, I know, from first hand, that she is right and this was the custom years ago. Yet- squeak insists she is wrong.Is some room to reconcile both shittas?
Allow me to try. To lower the flame FOR NO PURPOSE AT ALL-on yom tov would be a melocho (lav).However, to lower a flame for ‘oichel nefesh” is mutter. Why should it be different than to light a flame? If you can light a flame for ochel nefesh (as even squeak agrees)why can’t you lower it,especially as there is mitoch -If you have a ‘zorech kzas” ? (Actully mitoch would not need even a zorech kzas except tosofos insists on zorech kzas).
years ago, fuel was expensive and leaving a flame high througout yom tov would incur great expense. By lowering the flame (not extinguishing) one uses “mitoch’ and it is a “zorech kzas” (actually sometimes a zorech harbeh).
i have no problem understanding that previous Poskim used this reason to use “mitoch ‘ and ‘zorech kzas”.
if today- you don’t mind paying the extra money and it is not a zorech anymore, you are welcome but allow the people who have done it for decades to continue using it.
In any case, lowering the flame while it is still cooking is certainly muttar according to most poskimg and hence, lowering the flame to the pilot can be done.
I will say that I, personally, leave a small flame on (not to the actual pilot)because then it is always possible to boil water or the like.
I do support sjsnyc in asserting that we should be more careful in our words.July 9, 2009 9:07 pm at 9:07 pm #650751
Just a warning to readers that the Psak I got for my stove was received approximately 10 years ago, and I may be remembering it as more lenient than it actually was. We don’t turn on/lower flames anyways, so I had no need to revisit and refresh my memory. The flame is turned on before Y”T, and there it stays. (For those worrying about shidduchim, Y”T is a great way to avoid the Yom Tov/Yontiff divide, at least via the written word :)).
What I definitely do remember is the prohibition regarding turning off the flame.
I hope that no one is Paskening for themselves from a blog, but still wanted to post this disclaimer.July 9, 2009 9:23 pm at 9:23 pm #650752
ROB: Don’t try to score polital points in a discussion of Halacha. I think in the thread on chalav stam I proved that I am not looking for the “chumra of the day” but the bottom line Halacha. Actually in my community I am known as being quite a meikal. If I would tell you my name you could see litteraly hundreds of teshuvos I have written, and by no means to I tend to be machmir.
However in this case their is ABSOLUTELY NO opinion in Halacha that allows one to lower a flame that is not for ochel nefesh. I have no problem with someone relying on Reb Moshe to lower a flame to simmer so that food will not burn, but turning off the burner is forbidden according to ALL OPINIONS. I think what oomis’s Rav and grandparents meant was to allow reducing the flame to prevent scorching the food, and this would be allowed on any oven, even w/o a pilot according to Reb Moshe.
Also, there is no heter of “mitoch” on extinguishin or lowering a flame and it may only be done for direct ochel nefesh, unlike transferring a flame.July 9, 2009 9:34 pm at 9:34 pm #650753squeakParticipant
SJS, I will just say one last thing (which may explain why I left out the caveat you were looking for) and that is that if there is such a psak it is unpublished. It is not the first time that I have heard reference to exactly this unpublished psak, either. If R’ Moshe (or whomever else it is to be ascribed to) did not see fit to publish the psak, why does oomis feel that she should? The poisek definitely had the means to publicize his opinion if he felt that it should be public. There is a concept of halacha v’ain maishivim, which it goes without saying applies when it comes to laypeople speaking on an issue where poiskem are silent.
With that said, I do sincerely apologize for any harsh words, which were not in any way intended to attack oomis personally.July 9, 2009 9:36 pm at 9:36 pm #650754
Re: Rabbi Klass
To claim that only the Chazon Ish forbade turning on electric lights on YT is DISHONEST.
Dismissing the Chazon Ish’s opinion solely by labeling him, w/o addressing the issues he raises is DISHONEST.
Ignoring Reb Moshe’s issur when he is the primary American Posek and generally quite meikal(and especially if he was R’ Klass’s Rebbe) is DISHONEST.
Misquoting Rav Ovadia Yosef is DISHONEST.
Basing a heter only on one Posek who never saw electricity and a second who retracted his heter is DISHONEST.
I have no problem with multiple understandings of how Halacha applies to electricity, but the starting point has to be understanding the metzius.July 9, 2009 10:57 pm at 10:57 pm #650755
I hope this is helpful:
The following is how a gas burner stovetop works. It makes no difference if the stovetop has a pilot or electronic ignition-
First of all, we’ll focus on three components; the burner, the pilot or ignitor, and a metal tub that runs between them without touching either the burner or pilot.
O ??? P <-- viewed from above
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | Pilot (or ignitor)
| Metal tube
Here's a side view of the burner, as seen from the metal tube:
| | | | / <-- gas holes on the burner top
| o | <-- note the two holes that face the open end of the tube.
1) When you turn on the gas, gas flows thru the holes at the burner top. A small amount also flows thru the small hole(s) that face the metal tube.
2) If pilotless, the electronic ignition sparks.
3) Gas flowing down the tube ignites, either from the pilot or from the sparking ignitor.
4) The fire follows the gas to its source (the burner) and ignites the gas pouring from the holes at the burner top.
5) Since the fire consumes the gas faster than it’s flowing from the tube, the flame doesn’t remain burning at the end of the tube next to the pilot. Instead, the flame at the bottom of the burner retreats to the hole(s) in the burner next to the tube.
Although the burner’s flame is initially ignited by the pilot, the pilot and burner are two separate flames after ignition.July 9, 2009 11:18 pm at 11:18 pm #650756
ICOT: Thank you very much for clarifying the metzius so the Halacha can also be clearJuly 9, 2009 11:31 pm at 11:31 pm #650757
well, PM, I am not sure how I scored political points in my reply. Check my most recent entry re: civility. I suggest that your original entry in reference to Rabbi klass totally lacked in that.Your last entry concerning Rabbi Klass falls in the same category. I am pretty sure that many Poskim have written similar , possibly faulty teshuvos without incurring your or other people’s wrath. As I never saw the teshuvah you are writing about, I cannot claim to know what Rabbi Klass wrote. Hence, I can only restrict myself to what I know. However, just a few remarks about this last entry (before I turn to the earlier one).
I have to respect your erudition and if that is the case, you would know that R”Moshe zz’l was a meikel in most cases EXCEPT in hilchos shabbos. For whatever reason, in that realm he was not meikel. Do you use liquid soap on shabbos? Well, r’Moshe says it is ossur. There are other examples (eiruv is one of them)but I will not dwell on them.
i daresay that there is not “pessul’ in basing a hetter on one possek, it is done all the time,especially ‘beshaas hadchak”. I don’t know the circumstances of Rabbi Klass’ writing so i cannot say this was the case but you cannot just dismiss a hetter because only one possek says it is so. The two Poskim you mentioned were giants in their time (the Aruch HASHULCHAN AND R’zzi pessach frank)and one can certainly rely upon them if needed. After all, you are relying upon the Chazon Ish for a chumro. isn’t he one solitary possek?
I can certainly add the Maharashdam to this list of mattirim and he was the greatest Possek in the early twentieh century in galicia and romania. not good enough for the Lithuanians maybe but good enough for me. I’ll be glad to refer you to the relevant people on that.
Lastly- on this matter- until today no one can claim to tell me or anyone that you know today how electricity works,especially in relation to melochos. Where is it stored? Does it disappear? how does the connection of a circuit suddenly make it come alight? and if thomas edison would not have invented the electric bulb, how would we even know where it went? i am not asking this just to be ‘mekanter’ but if you speak to scientists they will all tell you that what we think about electricty in connection with ‘melochos’ makes no sense. I am not here to pasken according to scientists but then again, you cannot just dismiss the Poskim who though using electricity did not contravene any halochos.
As far as your earlier entry on yom tov, at least you allow the fact that one can lower a flame to let the food simmer- well, can you lower the flame to the point that only the pilot is on? And if you say no, why not? there is still heat emanating from that source and you can actually heat up food on a pilot light ( I have done it)
Lastly- what makes the melocho of “mechabeh’ different than ANY other melocho so that you suggest that you cannot use mitoch??? jelamdenu rabbeinu, with some cogent sources.July 9, 2009 11:51 pm at 11:51 pm #650758
PM- I reviewed your entry about rabbi Klass writing in reference to electricity. I say again that I have not seen that teshuvo but your whole entry isd based on using electricity on SHABBOS. There is a world of difference when it comes to yom tov,as you well know. Whichever reason you use for electricity, there is “mitoch” working and hence, clearly a world of difference on yom tov. If you don’t agree with this, please explain why.July 10, 2009 12:03 am at 12:03 am #650759
ICOT- You have forgotten a critical component- where is the gas coming from?
actually, the gas is piped in THROUGH the pilot light and runs to the burner. So, it is ignited by the pilot BEFORE it even reaches the burner (by sheer pressure) and the actual source of the fire is at the pilot light-not at the burner. When you reduce the gas intake the fire RETREATS from the burner and remains in the pilot light.
so-your conclusion is WRONG and one can easily assume that this is only one light that is made smaller.July 10, 2009 12:11 am at 12:11 am #650760
Just trying to process- so if the pilot light goes out while the burner flame is on, the burner flame will be unaffected, correct? It will remain lit without the assistance of the pilot, because it is now a separate flame nourished by the gas flowing through the burner?July 10, 2009 12:22 am at 12:22 am #650761
It’s my pleasure to try to explain how stuff works.
As far as halocha, that’s not my purvey.
There are many halocha/metzios things that I don’t understand, such as the heter for Shabbos ovens (given by a well-known gadol), why some (many? all?) people hold that an incandescent light can be used as an aish motzei Shabbos, just as a couple of f’rinstances.
I do know people who hold that shutting a burner on a piloted stove is allowed, but I don’t know if their reasoning is mistaken, or if they are relying on something I don’t know of.July 10, 2009 1:49 am at 1:49 am #650762
actually, the gas is piped in THROUGH the pilot light and runs to the burner. No, it isn’t. If it worked that way you would see a flame running from the pilot to the tube the entire time the burner was lit.
So, it is ignited by the pilot BEFORE it even reaches the burner… No, it isn’t. It ignites when it reaches the existing flame at the burner.
…and the actual source of the fire is at the pilot light-not at the burner. No, it isn’t. Once the burner is lit, the pilot isn’t needed by that burner.
When you reduce the gas intake the fire RETREATS from the burner and remains in the pilot light. No, it doesn’t. The burner goes out since the fuel component of the fuel-air mix needed for combustion is missing. The pilot remains unaffected.
…if the pilot light goes out while the burner flame is on, the burner flame will be unaffected, correct? It will remain lit without the assistance of the pilot, because it is now a separate flame nourished by the gas flowing through the burner? Yes, exactly.July 10, 2009 4:19 am at 4:19 am #650764oomisParticipant
I think what oomis’s Rav and grandparents meant was to allow reducing the flame to prevent scorching the food, and this would be allowed on any oven, even w/o a pilot according to Reb Moshe.”
Please have enough respect to not try to tell me what my grandparents and Rov meant. The burners were allowed to be turned on and off on Y”T for cooking purposes. Period. No, kuntzim, no misunderstanding of the halacha. If I had a present day stove, I would no longer be able to use it in that way due to the different nature of the pilot lights made today.
I want to express my hakoras hatov to all those who have tried to explain my position, possibly more clearly than did I, even when you might yourselves hold differently. It is hard to argue with some people (and I don’t like to argue, to begin with), but it is gratifying to see that some people understand that implying that someone is a “leitz” because he or she thinks differently from you, is not indicative of having particularly good middos bein adam l’chaveiro.July 10, 2009 4:41 am at 4:41 am #650765
BTW – if the stovetop’s pilot light goes out, that’s not a good situation. Unlike some pilots (such as a gas dryer, water heater, oven) there is no thermocouple or other safety device that cuts off the gas flow to this particular pilot (unless there have been safety modifications I’m not aware of).July 10, 2009 7:04 am at 7:04 am #650766
ROB: Check the sources I brought on the first page. The Gemorra Beitza 22 writes that one may not extinguish a fire to save ones house from burning down on Yom Tov and this is brought in Shulchan Aruch 514:1. I don’t know about real estate values in the time of Chazal and I am aware that oil prices are on the rise, but I think it’s safe to assume that it is clear from the Gemmora that turning off the burner to save money on your gas bill would NOT be grounds for a heter on YT. Unless you consider the Gemorra and Shulchan Aruch to be unnecessary machmirim.
This Halacha is clear by itself that we do not say “mitoch” on kibuy. For a reason see Mishna Berura 518:1 where he explains that “mitoch” only applies to a melacha that is PRIMARILY ochel nefesh such as cooking. Extinguishing is NOT.
My comment on the “political points” is that you try to reduce a discussion in Halacha to a philosophical debate on chumros vs kulos. Nothing could be further from the truth. I fully agree that koach d’hetera adif, but when there are NO grounds to permit something we have no choice but to rule assur. This is clearly the situation at the case in point.
One thing I will concede is that if you want to turn down a pot to simmer and the ideal temperature to do this can be generated by the pilot light alone, there would be grounds to permit this. However I don’t believe this is the case.July 10, 2009 7:09 am at 7:09 am #650767
oomis: I never called you a leitz. Please don’t put words in my mouth, it’s unsanitary.
However the Halacha as you remember hearing it it clearly against the Gemorra and Shulchan Aruch, I am politely suggesting that there is a misunderstanding. The ONLY alternative would be to suggest that your Rav was ignorant, which is why I prefer to suggest you misunderstood the Halacha, similarly to how you misunderstood the terminology.July 10, 2009 7:23 am at 7:23 am #650768
ROB: Since you don’t know me you wouldn’t know that in my shiurim I regularly take issue with seforim that twist Halacha to support their persona agenda. Usually they are being dishonest creating new chumros, in this case it is a kula.
Reb Moshe clearly demonstrated respect for the rule of koach d’hetera adif, despite occasional chumros found throughout his teshuvos and not limited to Hilchos Shabbos. If he found no grounds to countenance any leniency regarding electric lights on YT, it bears mentioning.
I’m not relying on the Chazon Ish, the issue here is not boneh. However I don’t disagree with him by calling him names, I would instead analyze the sugya as Reb Shlomo Zalman Aurbach does in Minchas Shlomo.
However if you consider an electrical current to be fire that turning on a light is ma’avir, you must consider all electrical fans alarm clock etc muktza as a basis to the current. You can’t pick and chose contradictory kulos. Accepted understanding is that only the glowing filament is a fire not the current,therefore turning on a light is creating a new fire.
R’ TP Frank is certainly an excellent source to rely on, but not when he retracts his heter to rule it is assur. The Aruch HaShulchan is also a wonderful sefer, but an unpublished letter on a topic he was unfamiliar with is not something to rely on, especially if no one in the following 100 years concurred. The Maharsham (not Maharshdam who was much earlier)is also wonderful source to rely on, but he was not quoted in the article.July 10, 2009 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm #650769
PM- first, my thanks for you for your erudite and respectful replies. I will try to answer in the same vein.
In connection with extinguishing the fire in a house, you have only quoted half the story. I truly bow to your Torah knowledge but the same simman in the shulchan aruch (514-1) that prohibits extinguishing a fire in the house continues with a Remo that EXPLICITLY says that -if you have no other house-you can extinguish the fire. The same remo says the same about a pot.Hence, if one is left totally bereft, the remo is meikel.
There are various other discussions in the “nosei keilim’ and I will truly admit that I have not had time to peruse through all of them. The remo does say that- only for hefsed mommon- monetary reasons- you cannot extinguish the fire. But then again, we are talking about TOTAL extinguishing.The Aruch hashulchan- kedarko- has a full discussion on this matter.
I checked your source on 518-1 and ,correctly, it only allows “mitoch’ in the ‘melochos’ that deal DIRECTLY with oichel nefesh and according to most poskim, mechabeh is not directly involved in oichel nefesh. There is a huge “biur halocho’ that deals with this but I have not had the time to look over.
So, I readily admit to your point of view about fully extinguishing a fire on yom tov (I said so in an earlier entry)but my whole point with oomis1105 was that by reducing the fire to the pilot light is NOT fully extinguishing the fire and therefore has “good legs’ to stand on.
The whole difference rests on whether reducing the flame to the pilot light is “kibui” and whether they are two different lights.
You maintain that they are different lights and hence by extinguishing the main burner you have extinguished a light. That would be consistent with the various halochos in reraltion to full “kibui”
I maintain that the previous generation considered the pilot light and the burner one light and this was not “kibui” but just reducing the light to its minimum. yes, I know that even reducing light to a lesser flame may come under the prohibition of ‘kibui” but I added hefsed mammon to explain the possible leniency.
PLUS- and I am adding another layer to the discussion- reducing the flame by starving it of its gas intake may come under the title of “gram kibui”. Clearly, you don’t directly reduce the flame but all one does is reduce the gas INTAKE. That is gram kibui and ,as you know, “gram kibui” is muttor. BTW, there are precedents to call this gram kibui and I will gladly comment on that at a later date.
May i conclude this entry by recognzing your erudition and respecting your opinions.For you, it is obviously in your daily discussions. for me, it has been some tiem since I have been able to delve at depth in these sugyos and I am indebted to “pashute yid’ ,the originator of this discussion, and yourself to have given me this opportunity to leanr and to debate these weighty matters.July 10, 2009 1:10 pm at 1:10 pm #650770
to ICOT- We must have different stoves. In the stoves that oomis is talking about and that i remember from my youth, the pilot light (often two) was at the edge of the burner and the gas intake of the burner was at the side. By opening the gas intake the pressure of gas spread into th burner and expnaded to the side ,catching the pilot light and catching fire. there was no “ignitor” at all, as you put it. the ignitor was the pilot light.the pilot light did have its own minute gas pipe-otherwise it woudl not continue lighting and-as you wrote- if it got extinguished it was dangerous because the gas continued to seep through the opening.
so, my point is simple. the gas comes in under pressure and does get ignited by the pilot when it travels back-through the pipelet-into the burner.
when you cut the gas intake, the flame then retreats and loses its sustenance but if you consider that the original fire was STARTED by the pilot light -this is incontrovertible, then all you have left is a smaller flame.
This- I am pretty sure- is what happens and this is- i submit- the basis of the meikilim.
I think this whole discussion is based on how you consider a fire, is one side of a fire distinct from the other side or are they all part of one big flame? Afer all, a fire isd made of of a multitude of flames. are al lthe flames individual fires or are they one big fire/ Think abouit it and you will see why there are two different opinions on this.July 10, 2009 1:45 pm at 1:45 pm #650771
ROB: thank you for your response. Can you please bring a source to differentiate between full extinguishing and partial. I can not find one. Also I would be interested if there is any sefer that brings a psak permitting turning down or off an oven with a pilot. Again I have not found anywhere in writing nor have I heard of a living Rav to discuss the sugya who will permit it.July 10, 2009 1:50 pm at 1:50 pm #650772
Additionally, the Rema is NOT meikal because of hefsed or tzorech, he considers not having a house to eat in “ochel nefesh”. So there is still NO source to permit extinguishing or reducing a flame for non-ochel nefesh purposes.July 10, 2009 3:12 pm at 3:12 pm #650773Pashuteh YidMember
Glad everybody enjoys the thread (non-political for a change, although I didn’t like the tone of disrespect in some of the posts).
As far as unpublished tshuvah of Reb Moshe, as far as I can recall it is published, and I will look up over Shabbos.
But before that, I wish someone will develop the sugya from its roots. I started with the Rambam. However, do all rishonim agree that melacha Shetl”g is assur? Do all rishonim agree that kibuy is melacha Shetlg? If not, then maybve kibuy is only drabbanan on Shabbos, and certainly on YT. Is removing gas considered kibuy, or not. We can’t remove oil from a lamp, but I believe I just learned in Rambam that one can take away a log from a fire if it has not ignited yet. I also believe one can carry a flame, even though it will get smaller. I also heard that during havdala when YT is Motzai Shabbos, there is a heter to use the shabbos candles holding them together and then releasing even though the flame will get smaller.
So one who wants to discuss the sugya needs to develop it step by step according to the gemara and rishonim, and only then to apply it to the modern metzius. If somebody is willing to do the research, please do so, or I will try to do some over shabbos.July 10, 2009 3:39 pm at 3:39 pm #650774
PM- thank you for your reply. Truly, i don’t understand your question about differentiating between full extinguishing and reducing the light. This has been the substance of this whole discussion. If reducing light ( heat,fire)is “ossur’ because it is considered the same as extinguishing, then our whole discussion is redundant. if there is a blanket “issur” on reducing heat-light, what are we arguing about? If one allows to turn down heat while cooking (let us fully accept the oichel nefesh need) then clearly it is not considered “kibui” that is ‘ossur”. You yourself have -rightly- pointed out that there is no ‘mitoch” with “kibui” but that for “oichel nefesh’, it is allowed. Nonethless, virtually everyone will accept that a full extinguishing of a flame cannot add to “oichel nefesh” and is certainly prohibited. Reducing the falme is allowed. SO, bemechlas kevod torshcho, I don’t understand your question. This has been the essence of the discussion.
As per your second point, I have accepted all along -and you have pointed out the source-that a full kibui without cause is not allowed. You are right in questioning my speculation that ‘hefsed merubah’ was a part of the possible hetter, but it was only in the context of reducing the light. The remo seems to allow even FULL extinguishing of fire for ‘oichel nefesh”, even though none of us today woudl say that yo ucan put out the gas light TOTALLY to save the food. So, there is quite some different messages here. Thank your for your input. it gladdens my heart to be able to discuss weightier matters than the problems of Lakewood.July 10, 2009 3:48 pm at 3:48 pm #650775
PM- i tried to answer your ‘thread’ about electricity in an earlier entry but it didn’t go through.
it is pretty clear that Poskim in the early days of eelctricity did not know how to handle this new phenomenom. (BTW- why do you assume that the Aruch Hashulchan did not have electricity? If my memory proves me right, he lived into the twentieth century)
This is why we had different attempts at explaining why it should be ossur or not.
I would submit that the actual flow of current has no rerason to be ossur-just like oxygen, wihout which no fire is possible- is not “ossur”. Only the RESULTS of this current- or, as the Chazzon Ish maintains, the formation of the current- can be ascertained.This is where the whole hullabalo started. The early mattirim did not believe that it fell under any prohibition for yom tov ,same as fire. (shabbos is different) This is what, I presume, Rabbi Klass wrote in his writings,relying upon some Poskim.
Today, we don’t use the current but it is far from clear why this is so. For every ‘melocho’ under which it may fall, there is a mitoch and I still don’t understand why it should be “ossur’ on yomtov. I’d love to be enlightened.July 10, 2009 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm #650776gavra_at_workParticipant
Pashuteh Yid & PM: Fourth Chelek in Orech Chaim (forget exactly where) R. Moshe deals with this issue of Drabannan vs. Deoraysa for melacha Shetl”g. I think he says most Rishonim argue on the Magen Avraham who holds Kiboyi is worse than starting a new flame, and therefore holds one should light anew rather than lowering; Rav Moshe argues and allows lowering of a flame for cooking purposes.
The “Chiddush” is from Orach Chaim first Chelek, but he says he does not want it to be printed, but its along the lines of a gas cutoff is stopping additional fuel, not removing it (Ayin Shom).July 10, 2009 4:50 pm at 4:50 pm #650777oomisParticipant
ROB to ICOT- “We must have different stoves. In the stoves that oomis is talking about and that i remember from my youth, the pilot light (often two) was at the edge of the burner and the gas intake of the burner was at the side”
“also heard that during havdala when YT is Motzai Shabbos, there is a heter to use the shabbos candles holding them together and then releasing even though the flame will get smaller.”
That is exactly what we do – otherwise what else would you do – light a havdalah candle and let it burn all the way down to the end? Or do they make havdalah candles in small sizes specifically for this purpose and meant to brun down like a shabbos candle(now THERE is an idea for a product!! ).July 10, 2009 4:53 pm at 4:53 pm #650778
It sounds to me like you are describing a stovetop where each burner has a pilot whose flame is immediately adjacent to the burner, and whose flames merge when the burner is ignited.
I have never seen a stovetop like that (not that I doubt you).
In such a case, my diagram and explanation would not apply.July 10, 2009 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #650779
However if you consider an electrical current to be fire that turning on a light is ma’avir, you must consider all electrical fans alarm clock etc muktza as a basis to the current. You can’t pick and chose contradictory kulos. Accepted understanding is that only the glowing filament is a fire not the current, therefore turning on a light is creating a new fire.
What you are saying about the flow of electricity itself not being aish makes sense.July 10, 2009 5:24 pm at 5:24 pm #650780
Chevra- thanks to pashute yid for a great thread,including all the very useful comments.
ICOT- see the comment by oomis. Clearly, the older stoves had/have a pilot light that has a direct pipelet to the burner.It also has its own intake of gas separately. The pressure of the gas coming into the burner from a different pipe ,as it expands into the narrow pipelet to the pilot light, it becomes a larger flame that , in turn, lights all the holes of the burner. As far as I know, the flames don’t merge, but then again, I could not tell you that, as I never actually looked into the stove when food was cooking. But,clearly, the fire came from the pilot light and gas always expands (elementary physics)and therefore the pilot light ignites it. There is no other ignitor at all.
gavra at work- your contribution to this discusssion is priceless. I did not know that R’Moshe zz’l has exactly this idea in mind, that cutting off the gas supply is a gram. I knew it from different sources,as I wrote.Obviously, this puts a whole different spin on this whole discussion as it introduces the concept of “gram kibui”. which is muttor ( i think, even on shabbos) maybe PM has different insights.July 10, 2009 8:28 pm at 8:28 pm #650781
The stovetop you describe in your last post sounds very unusual.
I’m not a spring chicken, and the stovetops of my parents’ generation, grandparents too, for that matter, appeared consistent with your first description. I have never seen a stovetop with a pilot light that literally merged with the burner flame, although there are other things I haven’t seen as well… Quite an unusual stovetop, though.July 10, 2009 11:51 pm at 11:51 pm #650782
Are we talking about an AC or a DC current?July 11, 2009 10:57 pm at 10:57 pm #650783
ICOT: the Gemorra refers to creating a glowing mass of metal as “igniting”, the filament of a light bulb would be no less.
ROB: I am not familiar with a psak from Reb Moshe that considers turning off the gas “grama”, but I will look for it b”n. However in OC 1:93 towards the end he writes that there is NO difference between lowering the flame on a gas oven on YT and extinguishing it completely. The implication being that both are forbidden when not for ochel nefesh purposes and it is NOT considered grama, rather complete kibuyi. Gram kibuyi is forbidden on Shabbos but allowed on YT.July 11, 2009 10:59 pm at 10:59 pm #650784
When YT is motzai Shabbos it is preferable to use two separate candles and NOT hold them together. Having a “torch” is only a chumra while the issue of kibuyi is much more severe.July 11, 2009 11:10 pm at 11:10 pm #650785
ROB: Kibuyi is the same issur whether extinguished completely or if the fire is only reduced. In both cases it is forbidden when not for ochel nefesh and permitted when O”N is involved. That is why the Rema permits completely extinguishing the house fire. I quoted an Igros Moshe to this point above, but Mishna Berura and earlier sources are also clear. The only difference in our case is that with an oven there may be justification to reduce the flame to simmer as ochel nefesh, but completely turning off the fire would NEVER be ochel nefesh because if the food needs no further cooking it could be completely removed from the stove.
The Aruch HaShulchan was niftar in 1908, and there was no electricity in small towns in Eastern Europe at the time.July 12, 2009 3:23 am at 3:23 am #650786Pashuteh YidMember
Just looked up Reb Moshe over Shabbos, and there are two teshuvos. The first, in OC 1:115, and the second much expanded in OC 4:103. He says that as I asked before, in fact most rishonim disagree with the Rambam, and hold like Reb Shimon that melacha shetl”g is patur. So in fact kibuy is only drabanan, max. Because of this, if one has a choice of lighting extra flames of lower temp to keep cooked food warm, or simply being mechabeh, much better to do the drabanan of kibuy than the deoraisa of kibuy. He says that when wood was used, possibly you needed to do a lot of work to put out all the flames in different pieces of wood, so maybe was simpler to light one new small flame elsewhere. However, today, turning gas up or down is identical. Might as well turn it down, which is drabanan, than turn another flame on which is doraisa. (What is confusing to me is that lmayseh, the doraisa is mutar because of ochel nefesh, however, apparently Reb Moshe holds that we don’t use the heter of ON when we have an alternative, which in this case is a drabanan of ON, i.e., kibuy. He says that there is no heter to do kibuy to save gas.
Possibly one could leave 4 burners at 4 different temps and transfer food around, but this is obviously impractical, will heat up your house unbearably, and is quite possibly a sakanas nefashos, especially with kids. Also, most people have only one fleishig oven, so you could not do that with an oven. You must therefore adjust the temp for each recipe which was what Oomis was saying all along. The reason why a pilot light is different than electrical ignition is simply that if you turn off the electric one, you can never turn it back on till after YT, whereas the pilot oven can be turned back on if it goes out when you turn it down to prevent food from burning (assuming it is one connected flame, which some posters here have disputed).
Basically though to build up the sugya the variables are:
1) Is kibuy always considered melacha shetlg? (Seems nobody disputes that I have seen so far.)
2) Is halacha like Reb Yehudah that above is asur doraisa or like Reb Shimon that it is drabbanan? (Rambam say doraisa, Reb Moshe says most rishonim day drabanan.)
3) Does ON apply to kibuy or only to havara? (Even according to Rambam, Reb Moshe is mechadesh that kibuy to prevent burning is still permitted, as ON does apply to kibuy. The Rambam’s issur of kibuy to prevent oversmoking does not apply if food will actually be burnt and totally ruined. In that case ON allows kibuy.)
4) Which melachos does ON apply to? A machlokes Rebbe Yehuda and Rabbanan in Beyah, I believe (did not have chance to look up and remind myself, but may depend on what cannot be done erev yontof). Reb Moshe says there is nothing magic about havarah and bishul, and kibuy is also permitted.
5) What melachos did Chazal say mitoch, and why? (Mitoch allows one to do the melacha even not for ON, but according to some rishonim, only where there is some tzorech hayom ktzas.) Seems they said it by hotzaah and havaras aish, but not by other things or kibuy. Possibly because kibuy is not really necessary for preparing food, only to prevent it from getting ruined, so it is not an intrinsic food melacha. (However, kibuy can still be done if for the purpose of saving food, but not for saving gas.)
I am to tired to look into point 4 about machlokes R”Y and Rabanan regarding Lachem lchol tzarchechem (and Edaf.com is down now), but think this is the basic outline.
So bottom line is that Oomis certainly has backing, although turning off oven for no purpose seems problematic, only if it will affect food. However, I wonder about if house gets too hot, or kids are around that could burn themselves.
Incidentally, regarding turning on electric light on YT, I grew up in a different part of the country than Oomis, and remember hearing that some rabbonim would permit turning light on, but not off, if there was great need, although this is not mainstream these days, and may be one of the earlier piskei halacha of electricity, before things became more standardized in the klal.July 12, 2009 4:19 am at 4:19 am #650787
Thank you for the info.
A google search actually brought up a few sites that discuss the issue in some detail and mention Shabbos 41a and 41b, Yevamos 6b and a machlokes between the Rambam and Raaivad concerning which melacho is violated by heating an iron bar until it glows.
Typical household current is AC. Batteries produce DC. Either way, the filament in a bulb produces light and heat due to its resistance to the flow (one-way or back-and-forth) of electrons.
? B??? B???? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
? (3) ? (3) ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
? P??????????????? ????????????????P ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? (3) ? ? ? (3) ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ???B ? ? ? ???B ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? (1) (1) (2) (2) (1) (1) ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
K K K K
K - Knobs
B - Burner
P - Pilot
1 - Gas to burner
3 - Metal tube between pilot and burner
The above diagram is the view from above of a stovetop with pilots.
I therefore believe that my original explanation of how a piloted stovetop works, including the conclusion that once a burner has ignited, the pilot and burner are two separate and distinct flames, applies to their stoves as well.
Any plumbers here who do?
The best analogy I can think of re: the pilot-burner relationship, is one of two candles, about a foot apart, one burning and the other not.
If you extend a fuse from the non-burning one to the burning one, the fuse will ignite once it is close enough to the flame, then the fire will travel along the fuse until the second candle is lit.
What you will end up with is two separately burning candles.
The fuse that connected them and allowed the second candle to ignite no longer exists.July 12, 2009 7:14 am at 7:14 am #650788
A couple of minor points:
The reason why a pilot light is different than electrical ignition is simply that if you turn off the electric one, you can never turn it back on till after YT, whereas the pilot oven can be turned back on if it goes out when you turn it down to prevent food from burning (assuming it is one connected flame, which some posters here have disputed).
1) An burner that is normally lit via electronic ignition can be relit on Yom Tov, just not via the ignitor (i.e. use a candle, cigarette, etc.)
2) There is no dispute or question that turning on a burner which uses a pilot is not starting a new flame. The issue is only regarding turning off that burner.
Incidentally, regarding turning on electric light on YT, I grew up in a different part of the country than Oomis, and remember hearing that some rabbonim would permit turning light on, but not off, if there was great need, although this is not mainstream these days, and may be one of the earlier piskei halacha of electricity, before things became more standardized in the klal.
Turning on an incandescent light is a problem above and beyond other electricity issues, due to the fact that making a metal glow is aish as well (as “PM” mentioned above). Fluorescent lighting, LEDs, and other lighting methods that don’t result in glowing metals may only have the “electricity” issue (although be aware – the electrodes within a fluorescent bulb sometimes glow red).
According to an online article written by Rabbi Michael Broyde & Rabbi Howard Jachter (I don’t know if they are people the community relies on), electricity issues on Shabbos include:
1. Turning on an appliance is analogous to creating something new (molid) which is prohibited on Shabbat.
2. Completion of a circuit is prohibited because it is a form of building (boneh).
3. Turning on an appliance violates the prohibition of ma’keh bepatish (completing a product).
4. Completion of a circuit must kindle sparks and therefore is prohibited because it creates a flame.
5. The use of any electrical current leads to an increase in fuel consumption at the power station, which is prohibited.
6. Heating of a metal transistor or wire, even when no visible light is emitted, is prohibited because of cooking or burning.July 12, 2009 9:54 pm at 9:54 pm #650789
wonderful post and thanks to all the contributors ! before tackling pashute yid’s post- just a quick word to PM. I (truly) appreciate your erudition and all your insights. You are right in saying that ,as far as melocho goes, there does not sdeem to be a difference between total “kibui’ and lowering a flame- unless both were “oichel nefesh”. I’tll try to discuss the matter of what lowering a flam might be a bit later. I do quibble with your assertion that the Aruch Hashulchan did not know or see elctricity. He lived in Novarduk for 34 years -not exactly a small village and I am pretty sure that he knew all about electricity, in use since the 1880’s. I have not seen the teshuvo that Rabbi Shlom Klass refers to ,of course, so his words cannot be verified but he knew all about electricity. Thnak yo ufor your correction about my allusion to the “Mahrsham”, not the “Mahrashadam”.
It was also gavra-at-work who mentioned that Igros Moshe,see his post. I , myself, am familiar with this approach to a gas line -callin the cutting off of the gas a grama-since the 1960’s. I am not sure that it has penetrated the general discussion but the logic has soem solid ground. I am-BTW- talking about cutting off the supply at the edge of the stove-at the moment of entry.This is how older stoves functioned.It had a line going into the stove and you could turn a bracket to shut off the supply. The logic for calling it gramma is that you are not extinguishing the fireljust starving it of its supply. Not unlike taking away logs on the side of a fire (Pashute yid’s entry)that is clearly a gram kibui.If gacra at work could indicate the place in Igros Moshe, it would be useful. anyway- I’ll try to add to the discussion in a later wntry,as I had the opportunity to review thr Aruch Hashulchan over shabbos. More of that later.July 12, 2009 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #650790
ICOT- You seem to have duplicated the stove as I remember it. However, your analogy to two candles is incorrect. Gas expands and when the gas i nthe pilot light is ignited, how do you think that the gas in the burner gets lit? By the expansion of the gas into the pipelet, it becoming ignited as it reaches the pilot light and then traveling BACK to the burner. So the gas is all one fire- there may even be a light flame in the actual pipelet, I don’t know,I have never looked. Unless you accept the fact that the gas in the burners expands and gets ignited during its travel through the pipelet, with the lit gas then returning to the burners, you will have to explain to me how the gas in the burners get ignited.
Also, once the gas is ignited ,how does it suddenly stop being a fire in the pipelet?
Unless you can answer these questions, I can safely assume that it is not two fires but one continuous fire. Candles are totally different things, they being totally separated and being ignited-just once- by one flame to the other. Till you solver for me the question of how the gas gets ignited, I can assume that it is one fire.July 12, 2009 11:32 pm at 11:32 pm #650791
Till you solve for me the question of how the gas gets ignited, I can assume that it is one fire.
The below diagram is the view from the side of a burner and pilot.
The burner has not been turned on.
| | | | / <--(a)
_____________________ | |
(F) (T) > <--(b)|
/ _____________________ >_______|
1) The burner is turned on. Gas fills the burner, and escapes thru the holes on top and on the side.
| | | | /
_____________________ | |
(F) GGGGGG> GGGGG |
/ _____________________ >_______|
2) Gas continues to flow thru the holes on top and on the side. The gas flowing from the side travels down the tube and ignites on the pilot light.
| | | | /
_____________________ | |
(F)FFFFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG> GGGGG |
/ _____________________ >_______|
3) Since the gas in the tube is being consumes faster than the burner is filling the tube with gas, the flare retreats down the tube toward the burner. Note, there are now two separate flames.
| | | | /
_____________________ | |
(F) FFFGGGG> GGGGG |
/ _____________________ >_______|
| | | | /
_____________________ | |
(F) F> GGGGG |
/ _____________________ >_______|
Gas expansion, if any, is minimal.
Unless you accept the fact that the gas in the burners expands and gets ignited during its travel through the pipelet, with the lit gas then returning to the burners, you will have to explain to me how the gas in the burners get ignited.
Also, once the gas is ignited, how does it suddenly stop being a fire in the pipelet?July 13, 2009 12:06 pm at 12:06 pm #650792
I’m sorry I’ve fallen out the past two days, but I just had my 10th child. I will try to get back into the discussion ASAP.July 13, 2009 1:14 pm at 1:14 pm #650793SJSinNYCMember
This thread is going way above my pregnancy brain’s comprehension rate 🙂
I do think that some people should apologize to Oomis for insulting her.July 13, 2009 1:54 pm at 1:54 pm #650794
Mazal Tov PM!!July 13, 2009 3:05 pm at 3:05 pm #650795cherrybimParticipant
Rabbiofberlin: I just started reading this thread and I think your last posts very “enlightening” and if were submitted earlier, Oomis would have been spared a lot of grief.
Rav Moshe’s shita: Modern ranges, as you said, produces a flame because gas is constantly fed to the burner, like someone throwing logs into a fire from a pile. If someone were to hold this person’s hand, preventing further throwing of the logs, the fire would go out. So too, held Rav Moshe with gas ranges: when the knob is turned to lower the gas or to turn it off completely, it is NOT “kibui” but rather withholding the fuel (logs) from burning. So it has nothing directly to do with cooking per se. Therefore, holds Rav Moshe, lowering or tuning off the flame on Yom Tov is permissible.
Those who argue, say that the source of the fuel and the cut-off knob is too close to the fire and the burner reaction is too quick for Rav Moshes’s s’vara to be valid.
Regarding electric ranges, raising and lowering can only be accomplished with a single coil burner. Many electric ranges have a double coil and adjusting the heat for cooking purposes would not be permitted.
If these items were already mentioned, I apologize.July 13, 2009 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm #650796
ICOT- we are getting to an interesting point- thanks to your wonderful knowledge and explanaitons.
indeed, it seems that those stoves work exactly as yo udescribe. BTW- tge gases MUST expand-even if a little-. If i remember my HS days- this is elementary in any gas,although it may very well be that the gas in the stove gets there because of the pressure.
Where idisagree with you is in number 3. You correctly describe that the gas flowing from the burner gets ignited by the pilot and the lit gas travels back to the burner to light the other gases emanating from the holes in the burner. What makes you think that the flame “retreats’ to the burner? You yourself seem to agree that there may be a low flame in the pipelet, so why would it stop burning?
When we turn down the gas- even shutting off the supply totally- it is a function of the FUEL ,not the flame, that is being curtailed. As a matter of fact, once one shuts totally the gas to the burner, the pilot light remains lit because it has its OWN supply of fuel (gas).
Basically, the stoves seem to me to be much more a function of rrducing fuel- not actually dousing the fire. “Kibui” means -gnerally- dousing or extinguishing a fire. I think that the discussion on gas stoves is mouch more akin to taking away oil from a lit lamp or taking away logs from a fire (see pashute yid)than to actually extinguishing fire.
I don’t remember the halocho of taking oil from a lit lamp- I am pretty sure it is fully ossur on shabbos, so we have to know how it is on yom tov.
The more i think about it the more I think this is the right approach. Love to hear all your comments.
MAZEL TOV TO PM !!! boy or girl?July 13, 2009 3:45 pm at 3:45 pm #650797
cherrybim- i just saw yoru entry. I think you have it exactly right- i just entered another entry that mirrors what you just wrote. Thnak you and thanks for standing up for oomis!
- The topic ‘Melacha Sh’einah Tzricha L’gufa’ is closed to new replies.