Adjusting Timers and Thermostats on Shabbat

In last week's issue, we discussed the prohibition against using electricity on Shabbat. In this week's issue, we will discuss adjusting timers and thermostats in to order initiate, expedite, delay or suspend activation or deactivation of an electric device connected to a timer or thermostat. As per last week's issue, this discussion is limited to timers or thermostat with manual controls and not electronic controls. [Setting up a timer before Shabbat was discussed in a previous issue.]

Adjusting to Change the Status-Quo

The first part of this discussion will focus on actions that cause the timer to change the status-quo of the device by either having the device activate or deactivate at a time earlier than scheduled or by initiating a new action on the timer. The question is whether one can apply the concept of gerama (loosely defined as indirect action) to an adjustment that changes the status-quo of the device. The Gemara, Shabbat 120b, states regarding Shabbat that while performance of melacha thorough action is prohibited, performance of melacha through gerama is permitted.

There is a dispute among the Rishonim regarding the statement of the Gemara that gerama is permitted. Rabbeinu Asher, Beitzah 2:17, implies that it is completely permissible to perform an action caused by gerama. According to Mordechai, Shabbat no. 399, it is only permissible in a case of loss (e.g. to extinguish a fire indirectly to save one's property). Rama, Orach Chaim 334:22, codifies the opinion of Mordechai. However, Mishna Berurah, Sha'ar HaTziun 514:31, notes that on Yom Tov, one may perform a melacha through gerama even if there is no loss involved. Therefore, the discussion of whether to consider adjusting the timer to change the status-quo of the device as gerama is limited in practical application to cases of loss (or other pressing needs) or to Yom Tov.

The Mishna, Shabbat 120a, states that it is permissible to place jugs full of water around a fire in order to prevent the spread of a fire. The Gemara, Shabbat 120b, states that permissibility to do so - even though the jugs of water will likely extinguish the fire - is based on the concept of gerama.

A number of Acharonim note that categorizing placing the jugs of water as gerama seems to contradict a general principle of gerama. Gerama applies to many areas of Halacha including torts. If someone personally damages property directly, he must pay for it. If he damages property through gerama, it is not treated as if he personally damaged the property and the damage has different legal ramifications. The Torah (Shemot 22:5) states that if one lights a fire and it spreads and burns someone else's property, the one who lit the fire must pay for the damage. This case is ostensibly gerama since the lighter didn't directly light the fire on his neighbor's property. Rather, the wind spread the fire. For this reason, Reish Lakish (cited in the Gemara, Baba Kama 22a) rules that we don't treat it as if the lighter personally burned the property. Rather, we treat it as if his property caused damaged to his neighbor's property. R. Yochanan (ibid) disagrees and maintains that we treat it as if the lighter personally lit his neighbor's property on fire. R. Yochanan's concept is called isho mishum chitzo, a person's fire is the equivalent of his arrow. The Acharonim ask: if according to R. Yochanan, lighting a fire is not considered gerama, why is it permissible to place jugs in the path of the fire on Shabbat in order to prevent the spread of the fire? This question is further compounded by a statement of the Gemara, Baba Kama 56a, that if one places wheat stalks in the path of a fire, one must pay for the damage. This case seems exactly comparable to placing jugs in the path of the fire on Shabbat.

There are two basic approaches to answering this question. First, R. Yosef D. Soloveitchik (cited in B'Ikvei HaTzon 7:4) notes that isho mishum chitzo only applies when the auxiliary force acts on the primary force immediately after the creation of the primary force. When one lights a fire, the fire is considered the primary force and the wind is the auxiliary force. If the wind spreads the fire immediately after it is lit, isho mishum chitzo is applied. However, regarding the placement of the jugs of water, the primary force is the water and the auxiliary force is the wind that is spreading the fire. Since the two forces don't interact at all at the time of the placement of the water, the placement of the water is considered gerama. [One must add that this explanation follows the second opinion of Tosafot, Sanhedrin 77a, s.v. Sof, that placing stalks of wheat in the path of the fire is gerama and the reason why one is responsible is that R. Yochanan agrees that one must also pay for damages caused by fires that are not directly attributable to the lighter.]

Applying R. Soloveitchik's suggestion to timers, one should view the pin as the primary force and the clock that moves the pin as the auxiliary force. When one places a pin in the timer, the clock begins to move the pin immediately and therefore, it cannot be considered gerama. Regarding thermostats, if for example, it is currently 73° in the room, the air conditioner is set to activate at 75° and one would like to move the dial so that the air conditioner is activated at 74°, one should view the dial as the primary force and the sun as the secondary force. When one moves the dial closer to the 74° mark, the sun begins to act immediately in moving the dial even closer to the point where the air conditioner is activated. Therefore, it is not considered gerama.

Second, R. Shlomo Z. Auerbach, Me'orei Eish (pg. 160) suggests that there is in fact a difference between Shabbat and other areas of Halacha. Regarding Shabbat, the Gemara specifically derives that an action performed through gerama is not a bona-fide melacha. Therefore, the standards for what it considered gerama are more expansive and the concept of isho mishum chitzo does not apply. As such, adjusting a timer or thermostat to change the status-quo of the device is considered gerama. Nevertheless, as a matter of practical Halacha, R. Auerbach, Minchat Shlomo 1:13, presents the same explanation as R. Soloveitchik and maintains that one may only rely on the lenient approach if it is an extremely pressing situation and the resulting melacha is only rabbinic in nature (see last week's issue).

Maintaining the Status-Quo

With regards to actions that do not change the status quo of the device, the question is not one of gerama. Rather the question is whether this is tantamount to adding fuel to a fire. The Gemara, Beitzah 22a, states that one who adds fuel to a fire violates a Torah prohibition. Suppose a light is on and is set to go off. Removing the "off" pin will allow the light to remain on for a longer period of time. R. Binyamin Zilber, Az Nidberu 8:32, compares this to adding fuel to a fire and prohibits removing the pin. However, many poskim (see Yabia Omer, Orach Chaim 3:18 and Minchat Shlomo 1:13) assume that this not similar to adding fuel to a fire. Rather it is similar to closing the window in a room in which a lit candle is about to be extinguished by the wind. Rama, Orach Chaim 277:1 clearly permits closing the window. Similarly, the "off" pin can be compared to the wind, and closing the window can be compared to removing the pin.

There is a practical problem that arises in many of the modern timers if one desires to maintain the status-quo and delay deactivation of the device. These timers have a notch for each interval of time and the pin will not slide to the later position. Rather, it must be removed from the original position and then subsequently placed in the desired position. R. Auerbach, Minchat Shlomo 1:13, rules that removing the pin and replacing it is considered two different actions. Therefore, upon removing the pin, the timer is no longer set up to fulfill its desired function. Replacement of the pin into the desired position should then be considered isho mishum chitzo and would be prohibited. Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 13:25, suggests a solution to this problem. One may place a second pin in the desired spot and then subsequently remove the original pin. The justification for this is that at the time of placement of the second pin, no new action is introduced to the timer. Removal of the original pin is then permitted because that action merely allows the status-quo to be maintained.

The same logic that applies to maintenance of the status-quo for timers can be applied to thermostats. If the device is active, one may move the dial so that the device stays on longer. If the device is inactive, one may move the dial so that device remains off longer.