Dear Ruth Rosenthal,
A Chanukah menorah must contain enough fuel at the time of lighting to burn for at least half an hour after nightfall. Based on this, Rabbi Tzvi Pesach Frank, zatzal, head of the Rabbinical court in Jerusalem, ruled that one may not use an electric menorah. Electricity is not stored for future use; rather, it is consumed as it is generated. Thus the required amount of "fuel" is not in existence at the time of lighting. (According to this, a battery-operated menorah should be OK, because the fuel actually is there at the time of lighting.)
Another reason not to use an electric menorah is that the menorah we use commemorates the Menorah in the Temple and the miracle that occurred there. Our menorah, therefore, should resemble the one in the Temple. For that reason, many people use olive oil for fuel. Recently, someone marketed candles made of congealed olive oil for use as Chanukah and Friday night candles!
Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel Cedarhurst, NY
#2:
Re: "Current Candles" (Ask the Rabbi #173) concerning using an electric menorah: The answer included a ruling by Rabbi Frank about the menorah requiring all the fuel to be present at the outset, and since electricity is generated on demand, this setup is invalid. The answer further stated that using this rationale, a battery-powered menorah should be permitted because the fuel is present from the beginning.
The answer presupposes that electricity is the "fuel" of the electric lamp. Assuming this to be correct, a battery-powered menorah should likewise be invalid, because a battery does not store electricity, per se. It merely stores chemicals which generate electricity on demand, entirely analogous to the current which comes from the wall socket.
The real question, though, is whether electricity is properly considered the fuel of the lamp at all. After all, it is not a substance which is consumed in the production of the light. In an incandescent bulb, a glowing filament produces light. Since, halachically, a glowing piece of metal is considered to be fire, the filament is the fuel; the electricity is simply what caused the filament to be heated in the first place. This is similar to an ordinary glowing piece of metal -- the original source which imparted the heat to it is of little consequence. By this rationale, the electric menorah should be permitted.
However, I read a ruling by Rav Ovadiah Yosef some years ago, in which he stated that a valid menorah must have both a fuel source and a wick. For this reason, he stated, lighting a pile of sawdust or a gas jet is invalid, and an electric menorah, which also lacks the two components, is similarly impermissible.
Barak Greenfield
A:
Although there are differing opinions about using electricity for Shabbos candles, I am not aware of any Posek of stature who has permitted this for Chanukah. On the contrary, it was the opinion of Maran Harav Moshe Feinstein that in order to fulfill the obligation of Chanukah, you have to be the one lighting, and not a generator or in this case a battery. By turning on the switch you only act as a facilitator by opening up the pathways. If there are authorities who permit battery-powered menorahs please inform us who they are.
Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel Longbeach, NY
#3a:
Shalom Rabbi Frankel,
It would seem to me that lighting a channuka candle with a match is the same type of facilitation as turning on a switch. In either case, one is bringing a source (fire or electric generator) to a receiver (candle wick or incandescent bulb); the only difference is that in one the facilitation is done over a larger space of air than the other. Am I misunderstanding your rationale? Kol tuv,
Ari Trachtenberg University of Illinois@Urbana/Champaign
A:
There is a difference between your action and gramma causing something to happen. In one case you are bringing the fire to the wick. In the other someone else, i.e. the generator, is igniting the wick. You, so to speak, just opened the passage.
Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel Longbeach, NY
#3b:
Shalom Rabbi Frankel,
Please forgive my obstinance, but I'm afraid that I don't see the difference between the electric and combustive lighting. When I'm bringing fire to the wick, am I not just "opening a passage" between one combustive process on the match and the candle-wick? One could think, in the battery-case, that a similar chemical reaction is already potential in the battery (though no oxygen is present) and is "ignited" and transmitted to the filament when you flip the appropriate switch. There must be a finer grain of difference between these two cases that I am missing. I appreciate your response,
Ari Trachtenberg University of Illinois@Urbana/Champaign
A:
In fact, when you flip that switch all you do is build (complete) a circuit. The electricity flows by itself. I trust that this clarifies the issue.
Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel Longbeach, NY
#4:
Dear Rabbi,
I wish to comment on the permissibility of using electricity in menorahs.
Re: "Current Candles" (Ask the Rabbi #173) concerning using an electric menorah:
Barak Greenfield wrote:
The answer included a ruling by Rabbi Frank about the menorah requiring all the fuel to be present at the outset, and since electricity is generated on demand, this setup is invalid.
First, this is wrong. Electricity at home is not generated on demand but it is ever present, it is but used on demand. The potential energy is stored (just as the fuel is stored in a traditional menorah) and when we wish to use it, it is consumed in the form of electric current and finally it is converted to light energy in an electric menorah. As such, it conforms with the rule that says "a Chanukah menorah must contain enough fuel at the time of lighting to burn for at least half an hour after sunset" The difference is that in the case of electricity the fuel is stored in so big quantities that there is much more than enough of it to burn at least half an hour after sunset, it is practically never exhausted. I feel the rule is not complete. It should have also said that the quantity of fuel should not be more than enough for the lighting to burn a prescribed maximum period of time, so that we can understand that normally it won't burn for 8 days without a miracle.
However if the rule considers only the minimum quantity requirement for the fuel, an electric menorah should be permissible.
On the other hand, I would not permit the use of an electric menorah since one should use an as much as similar setup (menorah) to commemorate an event, and have the right feeling when doing so. Otherwise the next step would be to watch videos of people lighting real menorah's... Moreover, I am sure the "rule maker" meant the traditional fuel of the menorah not any other kinds of energy.
answer further stated that using this rationale, a battery-powered menorah should be permitted because the fuel is present from the beginning.
Exactly. According to that rule, a battery powered menorah can be used since the fuel is present. (With the presupposition that the "rule maker" takes the word fuel in a general sense, which I don't believe)
The answer presupposes that electricity is the "fuel" of the electric lamp. Assuming this to be correct, a battery-powered menorah should likewise be invalid, because a battery does not store electricity, per se. It merely stores chemicals which generate electricity on demand, entirely analogous to the current which comes from the wall socket.
I would not say so exactly. Let's say in the case of an electric menorah the fuel is electricity itself and it is stored, ready for us to make use of it, not generated as consumed. In the case of a battery powered menorah the fuel is the chemicals themselves that are converted to electric energy. In this case the chemicals are stored and are converted to electric energy as consumed. But there is nothing wrong with this conversion (as long as the chemicals themselves were present), since there is conversion in a traditional hanukah itself, where a chemical, the fuel, is stored and is converted to heat and light energy.
The real question, though, is whether electricity is properly considered the fuel of the lamp at all. After all, it is not a substance which is consumed in the production of the light. In an incandescent bulb, a glowing filament produces light. Since, halachically, a glowing piece of metal is considered to be fire, the filament is the fuel; the electricity is simply what caused the filament to be heated in the first place. This is similar to an ordinary glowing piece of metal -- the original source which imparted the heat to it is of little consequence. By this rationale, the electric menorah should be permitted.
This is completely wrong. The electricity is the substance which is consumed in an electric bulb. Electric energy is not just the starter of the process. Electric energy is converted to heat and light energy in the bulb. The converter (not the producer) is the filament but the consumable is electric energy. The filament is exactly analogous to the wick, which are neither consumed. In the case of the wick though, it is only the carrier of the chemical that is consumed. In the latter case there is a direct conversion, i.e. chemical energy to heat and light energy. In the case of electricity, a converter, the filament is used. In the case of the battery, there are two conversions: chemical to electricity to heat and light.
However, I read a ruling by Rav Ovadiah Yosef some years ago, in which he stated that a valid menorah must have both a fuel source and a wick. For this reason, he stated, lighting a pile of sawdust or a gas jet is invalid, and an electric menorah, which also lacks the two components, is similarly impermissible.
This is what I feel and one should agree if one decides to practice any religious activity like lighting the hanukah.
Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel Cedarhurst wrote,
permitted this for Chanukah. On the contrary, it was the opinion of Maran Harav Moshe Feinstein that in order to fulfill the obligation of Chanukah, you have to be the one lighting, and not a generator or in this case a battery. By turning on the switch you only act as a facilitator by opening up the pathways. If there are authorities who permit battery-powered menorahs please inform us who they are.
In the case of the electric or a battery powered menorah, the person is still the one who is lighting (well, starting) the light, by turning the switch on. You don't act as a facilitator, you use a facilitator, the switch. In the traditional case don't you use another facilitator, a match?
I feel this is not the point in not permitting electric menorahs. The point should be that one should use a setup as similar as possible to the authentic case in history. Either you practice and you do it the traditional way or, do it as you like, but have in mind that it is not the same practice. It is like feeding a virtual pet instead of a live pet!
Best Regards Albert Sarda Izmir, Turkey
A:
In response to comments made in "Current Candles" (Ask the Rabbi #173) concerning the use of an electric menora and Ask the Rabbi #178:
Although you write with a tone of certainty, confidence and self-assuredness I would still like to respectfully disagree with...
your description of the science involved
your halachic approach and
your interpretations and halachic conclusions
a) If it is true that electricity is stored and ever present how do you account for blackouts? When the generator shuts down, according to you would there be sufficient electricity somewhere for the bulb to burn for more than a half-hour? One would have to conclude, then, that, for whatever reason, the fuel is *not* present.
b) Is this stored electricity designated exclusively for my menora so that other electric users cannot siphon it off? If not it is just not there!
I will get to other points later. Let us consider first:
your approach to Halacha seems quite subjective. You brought no substantiating sources. You expressed a seeming total disregard for the halachic process and instead chose to use an "I feel" approach that you must admit, you made up. Consider the following statements.
I would not permit the use of an electric menorah since one should use an as much as similar setup (menorah) to commemorate an event, and have the right feeling when doing so. Moreover, I am sure the "rule maker" meant the traditional fuel of the menorah not any other kinds of energy. This is what I feel and one should agree if one decides to practice any religious activity like lighting the Chanukah. I feel this is not the point in not permitting electric menorahs.
While you sound like you have your heart in the right place this does not take the place of accuracy. I suppose that if you were making the rules independently all of this would be in your domain to "feel," "to be sure of" and to legislate. Unfortunately, or fortunately, this is not the way that it works. This does not automatically disprove your conclusions but in Halacha, the approach to truth is also a prerequisite to attaining it. You cannot just depend upon divining up a conclusion; it must be based on sources and precedent.
Let us now take up an analysis of the Torah's approach to fire and how it relates to our topic. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the approach of the sage Rabbi Yochanan in Bava Kamma 22A since the Halacha follows his ruling. In Exodus 22:5 the Torah tells us that if one was to light a fire even in his own domain and were it to travel and destroy another's property one is fully responsible for that action. The question remains, on what basis does the Torah hold me responsible for something that, it would appear, I had no visible connection to? Blame the fire not me. Rabbi Yochanan explains that "eisho mishum chitzav"; fire is like an arrow. Just as I am responsible for damages caused by my "power and energy" when I shoot an arrow and at the end of its flight it causes destruction, so too is my act of starting a fire. In other words, each continuous ignition of the fire as it moves on its course is considered, by the Torah, as if I had directly, physically caused it. This would be in contradistinction to gramma; an indirect damage that is considered a totally separate category or damages caused by my property, which, again, is another category.
On the other hand we find in Sanhedrin 77B, Chulin 16A and in other sources that if one opens up a path for water and it damaged he is responsible for the very first burst of water as if he had physically done the act with his body. This is called kocho or koach rishon. If any later stream of water caused the damage or if the water had traveled and then damaged, it would be called koach sheni and this would be in the category of indirect damages.
With the above in mind, let us now analyze the issue of the classical Chanukah menora. That we can compare the structure of damages to the lighting of the menora is proven by a cursory reading of Nemukei Yosef Bava Kamma 22A. There, the Nemukei Yosef compares the structure of damages with the lighting of the Shabbos candles.
In a classical case, we are dealing with a "person" lighting a "wick" that is carrying a "fuel," in this example oil. My lighting is "kocho" - my act (i.e., bringing the lit match to the wick), which remains until the light is extinguished. The source of fuel, that which MY fire will light, is identifiable and ever-present.
Let us now look at the issue at hand. In the normal electric menora, again, I act as the "goraim" the facilitator not the igniter. In fact, when you flip that switch all you do is build (complete) a circuit. The electricity flows by itself; I just open up the pathways for the generator to send the electricity. Although I will be responsible for the action of the first burst of electrons this initial "fire" (light) in no way causes or has any connection to what happens next as the electricity flows like water. My act ends right there. The rest is incidental.
Let us now shift to the battery powered menora. The fuel issue is just not as clear as you so nonchalantly assume. Even if there were to be a doubt as to the parallel of battery to oil, there are clear rules as to how one is to proceed in such situations. While the rule is that when in doubt, for rabbinic rules, we are lenient, that would only apply in a situation where no other choice existed. Usually it does. Similarly, in such a situation no bracha could be made since that is the rule for blessings.
In truth, though, I suspect, your arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, this argument (that the electrical creating chemical is synonymous with oil) will not hold up. What if I stood with a basket of olives next to the menora for a half-hour; constantly squeezing a little more oil, would Halacha accept this as potential fuel present? If I created a machine to do the same, would Halacha accept this as potential fuel present? I believe not. There is a clear-cut difference, in many areas of Halacha, between immediate needs and requirements and the requirements and needs one-step away. (Over la'syasan vs. over d'over) Again, your beliefs will not pass muster when held to this criterion.
As to requiring that the lighting of the menora parallel more exactly the lighting of the menora in the Bais HaMikdash, as you opine, there actually is an opinion like this. This opinion requires only a liquid fuel, making candles unacceptable. In practice, we do not accept this opinion.
There have been many great Torah sages of this century who have dealt with this issue. While some have permitted the use of electric candelabra for Shabbos candle lighting, even with a bracha, I have yet to see a responsa permitting this for the Chanukah menora.
I trust that this will shed some much needed light and clarification on this subject.
Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel Longbeach, NY
#5:
Dear Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel,
I thank you very much for the effort you made and the time you took to answer to my opinions with such a great patience and respect. Whatever I wrote was based solely on the rule that enough fuel should be present... I took nothing else into account. I am not in a position to be able to make any "halachic approaches" or to make any conclusions. This is why whatever I wrote is subjective. Since I don't mean to make any conclusions, I just wanted to comment on this rule and its use on electric menorahs.
Of course electric energy is not literally stored, and of course you can't account for blackouts. But something that is always present and instantly available and in enough quantity can be compared to something that is literally stored. Yes others can siphon it but not off. There is always enough energy for you to use. Also, in this case I take energy as fuel, which is literally not so. But I felt free to make such comparisons. One can agree or not.
Therefore if one agrees that electricity at the plugs is a kind of fuel that is somehow stored for us to use, it seems, when using electric menorahs, as we comply with that rule that says there should be enough fuel...
And moreover the stress of this rule is on "enough" and not on "fuel" (which is why, I, myself do not like the rule, which is not sufficient to account for all the cases). The point according to this rule is to be able to have the lights of the menorah on for a certain time, which we can accomplish by electricity. And the same approach applies to the battery case.
Of course, there are other halachic approaches, reasoning and discussions that can be made in order to reach a conclusion on this subject. But they were out of my intention, which was to comment on the use of electricity regarding the above rule. I would be impertinent to comment on those other subjects in which I am not educated.
On the other hand I found your approaches very useful and they shed a light on me and made me wish to know more and more, for which I thank you very much.
And now dear Rabbi Frankel, I wish to request from you to make some points clear for me.
On 28 Jan 98 at 23:40, Ydfrankel wrote:
Let us now look at the issue at hand. In the normal electric menora, again, I act as the "goraim" the facilitator not the igniter. In fact, when you flip that switch all you do is build (complete) a circuit. The electricity flows by itself; I just open up the pathways for the generator to send the electricity. Although I will be responsible for the action of the first burst of electrons this initial "fire" (light) in no way causes or has any connection to what happens next as the electricity flows like water. My act ends right there. The rest is incidental.
I don't understand how your turning the switch on has no connection to what happens next. This point should be discussed further.
The word ignite, means, set fire to or cause to burn. And you do this by approaching a facilitator (a match) to the wick. Also, you turn on the switch and cause the electricity "approach" your filaments, which can be considered igniting (I think about the battery operated igniters of some kerosene stoves... How about using this kind of a device to light a menorah?) I don't either understand why you cannot compare the flow of electricity to an arrow when you can compare the flow of fire to it.
Please also explain the reasoning behind considering the secondary damages of water (and of electricity) koach sheni whereas those of fire are considered koach rishon.
Could you help me understand these matters better?
I thank you very much in advance.
Albert Sarda Izmir, Turkey
A:
Dear Albert Sarda:
You write:
The point according to this rule is to be able to have the lights of the menorah on for a certain time, which we can accomplish by electricity. And the same approach applies to the battery case.
Herein lies one of the problems with your approach. You assume the reasons for this requirement. You just can't do that. There may be other reasons i.e., philosophical, kabalistic or just plain legal that prevent anyone from interpreting such reasons and reapplying them. The rule is not to have enough fuel so that the menora stays lit; rather you need so much fuel PRESENT at the time of lighting. Once you light, the mitzvah is complete. Technically if the fire goes out subsequently, even within the first half-hour, you are not obligated to re-light it. >Of course, there are other halachic approaches, reasoning and discussions that >can be made in order to reach a conclusion on this subject.
You, again equate your approach with Halacha. Yours was a personal opinion without basis in Halacha. It would be similar to an apprentice having an opinion about a legal issue without having properly studied the principles upon which the legal issues were constructed and then equating his opinion with the best trained legal minds in the country. You just can't do that.
Of course electric energy is not literally stored, and of course you can't account for blackouts. But something that is always present and instantly available and in enough quantity can be compared to something which is literally stored. Yes others can siphon it but not off. There is always enough energy for you to use. Also, in this case I take energy as fuel, which is literally not so. But I felt free to make such comparisons. One can agree or not.
If the rule is, and it is, that the fuel must be identifiable and literally present no case can be made for your argument.
But they were out of my intention which was to comment on the use of electricity regarding the above rule. I would be impertinent to comment on those other subjects in which I am not educated.
Perhaps, it might have been more discreet to have made your comments as questions rather than authoritative statements so that you will have a grater opportunity to learn.
Let us now look at the issue at hand. In the normal electric menora, again, I act as the "goraim" the facilitator not the igniter. In fact, when you flip that switch all you do is build (complete) a circuit. The electricity flows by itself; I just open up the pathways for the generator to send the electricity. Although I will be responsible for the action of the first burst of electrons this initial "fire" (light) in no way causes or has any connection to what happens next as the electricity flows like water. My act ends right there. The rest is incidental. I don't understand how your turning the switch on has no connection to what happens next. This point should be discussed further. The word ignite, means, set fire to or cause to burn. And you do this by approaching a facilitator (a match) to the wick. Also, you turn on the switch and cause the electricity "approach" your filaments, which can be considered igniting (I think about the battery operated igniters of some kerosene stoves... How about using this kind of a device to light a menorah?)
Our rules are divinely inspired. Even the legislation of the sages must parallel the precedents set by our torah. The definitions and mechanics of rabbinic ordinances will always mirror that which already exists in biblical law. The word ignite is not defined by you or me. The Torah defines it as I explained in my previous response.
I don't either understand why you cannot compare the flow of electricity to an arrow when you can compare the flow of fire to it.
I have asked scientists about electricity. There is as yet no absolute universally defined approach to explain it. There is for fire. How can one compare the defined with the ambiguous?
Torah requires that Halacha follow a certain non-technical approach. This is called mah shenereh l'ainayim; that which appears to the (intelligent) human eye. The Torah was not given exclusively to the technologically gifted. We therefore will not use microscopes to search for microbes and chemicals to discern blood. So while in certain instances electricity will exhibit fire like qualities, at other times it won't. Each situation is judged separately. In the case at hand electricity just doesn't act like fire.I have asked scientists about electricity. There is as yet no absolute universally defined approach to explain it. There is for fire. How can one compare the defined with the ambiguous?
Please also explain the reasoning behind considering the secondary damages of water (and of electricity) koach sheni whereas those of fire are considered koach rishon.
I am not knowledgeable enough at this time to answer this question. I know that they are different. I unfortunately never pursued this issue further. Please G-d, if and when I resolve this question I will let you know.
