What Happens If I Push This Button? – Part 2

Last week, we examined the use of electrical devices that deactivate immediately upon cessation of human effort. We shall conclude our discussion with an additional application: electric doors.

Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlit”a examines the subject in his Teshuvos v’Hanhagos (6:85):

Regarding an electronic key: since it does not cause the wires to heat up and glow but only activates an electric current which stops on its own, it would seem that the Halacha depends on the above: According to R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l’s interpretation of the Chazon Ish, it is permissible, while according to the other Poskim it is Asur min haTorah.

However, it should still be forbidden due to Molid (creating a new entity), as evident from Shu”t Beit Yitzchak and other Acharonim regarding one who activates an electric current. They maintain that since he generates electrical power in the wires, he also transgresses the Issur d’Rabbanan of Molid (in the same way it is forbidden to spray perfume on garments because this creates a scent in them).

However, others say that in a case like this, where he produces this current only for an instant and then it stops on its own, it does not constitute Molid. See the Tzitz Eliezer 6:6:15, who cites a Machlokes Acharonim as to whether Molid l’Sha’ah is forbidden.

In my opinion, one is forbidden to use an electronic key in any manner, due to the concern of an Issur Torah of Boneh and an Issur d’Rabbanan of Molid, as stated. However, by means of Amira l’Akum – which is only a d’Rabbanan – it is permissible in a case of great necessity. In our case, where he would remain imprisoned in his room for an entire Shabbos [if he were forbidden to use the key], he may rely on the view of R’ Shlomo Zalman that there is no Issur here at all.

Even according to those who disagree, holding that it is forbidden because of Boneh, it is not clear that it constitutes an Issur d’Oraisa; it may be only Asur mid’Rabbanan. If that is the case, it would be permitted by means of Amira l’Akum because it is Shevus d’Shevus (a d’Rabbanan on two counts) for the sake of Oneg Shabbos.

As for the concern of Molid due to the generation of an electric current: There is no Issur when it is performed by a non-Jew according to all opinions. Since Molid is an Issur d’Rabbanan, it would be permissible by means of Amira l’Akum, [again] due to Shevus d’Shevus for the sake of Oneg Shabbos, as stated in Mishna Berura (O.C. 325:60). Similarly, in Chutz laAretz, they were used to telling non-Jews to carry home their Chamin from the central oven through the city streets, since the Issur was only d’Rabbanan.”

In other words, according to R’ Sternbuch Shlit”a, one may rely on R’ Shlomo Zalman’s view in a Sha’as haD’chak and use an electric key card.

The Nishmas Avraham rules similarly (4, p19):

There are hospitals where all entrance doors, both to the hospital itself and to the inpatient wards, open and close electronically,  opening when a person approaches them and closing after he moves away. According to the Chazon Ish (that opening and closing an electrical circuit constitutes Boneh and Soser), a Jew would not be permitted to enter these hospitals on Shabbos to visit a patient, unless he enters together with a non-Jew and is careful to ensure that the non-Jew enters first. In addition, after entering, the Jew should walk together with the non-Jew or go ahead of him, so that after his entry, the door will close only after the non-Jew has passed.

However, R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l told me that when there is no other way and there is a great need, a Jew is permitted to enter in the regular manner and without the assistance of a non-Jew. R’ Yehoshua Neuwirth zt”l wrote to me that he should check carefully that there isn’t a light that switches on when one steps on the sensor.

The Nishmas Avraham implies that the basis for leniency is that since no Issur d’Oraisa is involved, one may be lenient for the sake of a Choleh. He does not claim that even the Chazon Ish would agree in this scenario, presumably because the fact that the door is opened makes it a significant act of Boneh, even though the electrical circuit that is formed is only momentary and not substantial enough to constitute Boneh on its own.

However, R’ Sternbuch’s ruling (cited above) is more cautious: Though it is only an Issur d’Rabbanan and is for the sake of a Choleh, the door should not be opened without a Shinui and only for a “great need”.

This is also the position of the Mishnas Yosef ^[1](5:70):

Regarding a mechanism that does not perform an action itself – such as an electronic button that activates a current which opens a door, where the opening of the door involves no prohibition – the discussion only concerns the activation of the current. According to the Chazon Ish, this constitutes Boneh and Tikun Mana. Many have analyzed the words of the Chazon Ish and did not adopt his view; see Minchas Shlomo 1:11, and other works. It appears that the Minchas Yitzchak 10:29 also took this approach, maintaining that opening a door via a magnetic electronic card constitutes only an Issur d’Rabbanan (see there), even though activating the current would be considered Boneh and Tikun Mana according to the Chazon Ish.

One could argue that activating the lock to open the door would not constitute Boneh or Tikun Mana because it is unlike setting a clock, which the Mishna Berura considers Tikun Mana (O.C. 338:15), since in that case the act of setting the clock is effective for a full day. Here, by contrast, pressing the button only causes the door to open and nothing more, as the current is activated for but a moment. This is therefore not considered a “Tikun” of the lock mechanism.

haGaon Rav Asher Weiss Shlit”a (Minchas Asher 1:31) cites an opinion that using an electric door should be permissible on Shabbos since the lock is connected to the electricity all the time. However, he disagrees strongly:

I must confess that I was astonished and shaken upon reading these words. Aside from the fact that the very comparison does not hold at all, the entire rationale of the Chazon Ish (that completing an electrical circuit is a Melacha of Boneh) is based on his understanding that when electricity is turned on and current is introduced into the wires, it is always considered like an act of Tokea – namely, effecting a structural change to a physical entity, whereby it becomes usable – which certainly constitutes Boneh.

Furthermore, in the Igeres of the Chazon Ish cited in Minchat Shlomo, it states that introducing “life” into dead wires is akin to Boneh (see there). This means that the very act of introducing electric current into the inert metal wires is itself the act of building, not merely rendering a vessel fit for its function. The Chazon Ish did not state that there is only a possibility of Boneh when activating an electrical appliance, but rather in the very flow of electricity through the wires…

In fact, there is an even stronger question to ask: Can we simply draw analogies and act accordingly? Have not all the great Chachamim forbidden the use of electricity, many years before the time of the Chazon Ish?

Essentially, it appears that we are not discussing the door and the lock at all, but the completion of the electrical circuit and the renewal of the flow of electricity, which, according to the Chazon Ish, constitutes Boneh, and the cessation of the current involves Soser. It is irrelevant which vessel or object is involved.

Due to all of this, I believe that this matter should be dismissed and not discussed. We must assume that any connection of an electric current involves a possible Issur d’Oraisa, even though we do not know with certainty the root of the prohibition and its precise definition. The Achiezer already protested engaging in this very question, after all the Gedolei Yisrael had ruled that there is a possible Issur d’Oraisa in completing an electrical circuit.

There is an argument to be lenient, namely, that this constitutes only a Binyan Arai and is not considered a Binyan l’Sha’a, since nothing remains from his act. If so, it remains an Issur d’Rabbanan, but one may be lenient for the sake of a Choleh in a case of great need, as we have seen. In any event, it should be performed with a Shinui.

Closing an electric door

If an electric door is opened, either by a non-Jew or accidentally by a Jew, may the Jew then leave the area, causing the door to close automatically?

Rav Yitzchak Mordechai Rubin Shlit”a, discusses this in Orchos Shabbos (36, footnote 29):

See the Sefer Me’or haShabbos, 4:10, footnote 130, which discusses automatic doors. In addition to the fact that a person’s entry causes the doors to open, his leaving the area also involves a potential Issur because when he leaves, a timer is activated that will close the door after a few seconds. If he walks behind the non-Jew, he may inadvertently trigger the timer and cause the door to close. Therefore, if it is possible – for example, if it is a wide doorway – after the non-Jew has opened the door, he should try to enter first, in front of him, so that the non-Jew will cause the activation of the timer.

However, if this is not possible, it would seem that a person may walk behind the non-Jew, and he need not be concerned with the result of his leaving the area. This is because he does not need the door to be closed and does not intend for it to happen, and there is no direct action on his part.

Further, activating the timer by leaving the area may not be considered an act at all, but a Grama. This should not be compared to entering through a door with an electronic sensor (which is regarded as a direct act), since in that case, the intention is for the door to open. Therefore, even if he does not perform a direct physical action, it is regarded as his act, like one who winnows and the wind assists him.

But regarding an act that he causes without intention, the principle of “winnowing with the wind’s assistance” does not apply. Thus, it is merely a Grama, and a Psik Reisha d’Lo Nicha Lei, and one should not be stringent in a case of great need.

Regarding doors operated by a photoelectric cell, where by walking through the area a person blocks a beam of light which causes the door to open: his leaving the area may be considered a Ma’aseh b’Yadayim, since it is akin to removing an obstruction (Hasaras Bidka), which is comparable to a Koach Rishon, because by leaving the area the light beam strikes the electric sensor.

Nevertheless, even in this case, it appears that, strictly speaking, it is permissible to leave the area in a situation of great need, since this is not a direct action, and the person has no need for it; it is therefore not attributed to him at all.

[1] R’ Yosef Lieberman zt”l (1928-2023).