Daf Ditty Pesachim 41: Toldos ha-Chama and Solar Power

1
2
The mishna taught that one may not boil the Paschal lamb in liquid. To explain this issue, the
Gemara cites a baraita that interprets the verse: “You shall not eat it partially roasted, nor boiled
in any way in water, but roasted with fire; its head with its legs, and with the innards in it” (Exodus
12:9). The Sages taught: “In water”; I have derived nothing other than the prohibition against
boiling the Paschal lamb in water. From where do I know that it is likewise prohibited to boil it
in other liquids?

3
You said that this can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference: And just as water, which
does not temper the taste of the food boiled in it, is prohibited for boiling the Paschal lamb, with

4
regard to other liquids, which do temper the taste of the food boiled in them, is it not all the
more so that it is prohibited to boil the Paschal lamb in them?

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi provides a different derivation and says: From the phrase “In water,” I
have derived nothing other than the prohibition against boiling the Paschal lamb in water. From
where do I learn that it is likewise prohibited to boil it in other liquids? The verse states: “Nor
boiled in any way,” which means: In any case, i.e., boiling the Paschal lamb in any type of liquid
is prohibited.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two derivations? The Gemara
answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to meat that is roasted in a pot
without the addition of any liquid, but is cooked in its own juices. According to Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi, it is prohibited to prepare the Paschal lamb in this manner, as this is considered boiling,
whereas the Rabbis maintain that an action is classified as boiling only if one adds liquid to the
meat.

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, with regard to that phrase, “boiled in any way,” what do
they do with it? The Gemara answers: It is required for that which was taught in a baraita: If
one boiled the Paschal lamb and afterward roasted it, or roasted it and afterward boiled it, he
is liable to receive lashes for boiling the Paschal lamb.

5
The Gemara asks: Granted, if one boiled the Paschal lamb and afterward roasted it, he is liable,
as he boiled it first and is punished for this act. However, if he roasted it and afterward boiled
it, and it is a food that has been roasted by fire, why is he liable?

6
The Sages taught: I might have thought that if one roasted the Paschal lamb fully, he should be
liable. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall not eat it partially roasted, nor boiled in any
way in water” (Exodus 12:9). This verse teaches that I, God, said to you that the Paschal lamb is
prohibited if it is partially roasted or boiled in any way, but not if it is fully roasted. One who
roasts the Paschal lamb fully has not violated a prohibition.

The Sages taught: I might have thought that one who ate an olive-bulk portion of the Paschal
sacrifice raw should be liable for violating a prohibition. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall
not eat it partially roasted [na], nor boiled in any way in water.” This verse teaches that I,
God, said to you that it is prohibited to eat the Paschal lamb partially roasted or boiled, but there
is no prohibition against eating it raw.

I might have thought that it is permitted to eat it raw ab initio. Therefore, the verse states: “But
roasted with fire” (Exodus 12:9). This teaches that the mitzva is to roast the Paschal lamb with
fire, ab initio. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of cooking that are defined as na,
partially roasted? Rav said: As the Persians say: Avarnim, half roasted.

7
8
Rav Ḥisda said: One who cooks food in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is exempt.
One violates the Shabbat prohibition of cooking only if he uses a fire. In the case of a Paschal
lamb that was cooked, i.e., boiled, in the hot springs of Tiberias, one is liable for boiling the
offering.

The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to Shabbat, that one is not punished for
cooking in this manner? The reason is that a fire, or a fire derivative, is required for an act to
be defined as cooking on Shabbat, but there is no fire here, as the hot springs are not generated
by fire. If so, with regard to the Paschal lamb as well, it is not a fire derivative, and it should
not be considered boiling with regard to this prohibition either.

9
Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Natan, teaches this interpretation of Rav Ḥisda’s statement explicitly,
i.e., that Rav Ḥisda himself said: One who cooks in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is
exempt, and with regard to a Paschal lamb that was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, one
is liable to receive punishment for this act. In doing so, he violated a positive mitzva, due to that
which is written: “Roasted with fire.”

Summary
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1
1. One cannot cook the korban pesach (paschal lamb) in water or in fruit juice. The Torah states
explicitly that the korban pesach cannot be cooked in water. The Gemora quotes an argument as
to the source that it also cannot be cooked in fruit juice. The Tanna Kamma says that if water that
does not take away from the taste is forbidden, certainly fruit juices are forbidden! Rebbe says that
this is learned from the verse “and surely cooked in water,” telling us that in any liquid it is
forbidden.

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Pesachim_41.pdf

10
2. Whether or not one can cook a korban pesach in a pot without water or juices is dependent on
the argument above. According to the Tanna Kamma, this is permitted, as allowing the natural
juices of the meat to pool and end up cooking the meat does not detract from the flavor of the
korban. However, according to Rebbe, this is forbidden, as the verse is teaching us that it is not
allowed to be cooked in any liquid whatsoever, even its own juices. It must be cooked without a
pot (on a spit) over an open fire.

3. A person who eats a piece of the korban pesach the size of a k’zayis (olive) when it is totally
raw has not transgressed the verse “do not eat from it when it is “na (see below).” The Gemora
explains that the word “na” in the verse means somewhat raw, although it has undergone the
beginning of the roasting process. Only someone who eats a korban pesach in this manner receives
lashes for transgressing this verse (see 5. below). Even so, it is still forbidden to eat the korban
pesach when it is raw, as the verse says “ki i’m tzli eish” – “only roasted over a fire.”

4. If one cooks the korban pesach in (something akin to) the hot springs of Teveria, he transgresses
not having eaten the korban pesach when it is roasted. The Gemora says that one who cooks the
korban pesach in (something akin to) the hot springs of Teveria is liable for punishment. The
Gemora asks that cooking in hot springs is not exactly cooking, as we see that someone who cooks
in hot springs on Shabbos has not violated cooking on Shabbos. The Gemora clarifies that the
transgression here is not “do not eat from it when it is “na” (see above) or cooked,” but rather
“only roasted over a fire.” [Being that this verse is only a positive commandment, no punishment
is given by Beis Din (in this world), which is why the braisa says he is exempt (from lashes).]

Solar Water Heaters

Our Gemora states that if someone cooks something in the hot springs of Teveria on Shabbos, he
is not liable for cooking on Shabbos. A similar case, where an egg is cooked by a placing it in a
handkerchief heated by the sun, is discussed at length in the Gemora in Shabbos (38b).

The Tanna Kamma says that such an action is forbidden on Shabbos, while Rabbi Yosi says it is
permitted. The Gemora explains that everyone agrees that it is permitted to cook using the natural
light of the sun (i.e., placing an egg outside in a very hot spot) on Shabbos. Everyone likewise
agrees that one cannot use fire to cook something, even if that fire is being used indirectly (heating
up the metal on the bottom of a pot that contains food that becomes cooked).

The argument is regarding using something that is heated by the sun to in turn cook the food. The
Tanna Kamma says that this is forbidden according to Rabbinic law (though permitted according
to the Torah) because one might otherwise end up cooking with fire, while Rabbi Yosi says it is
permitted. The codifiers rule like the Tanna Kamma (see Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 318:3)

11
While this sounds like a case that does not have practical application, it actually is at the heart of
an interesting Halachic debate regarding solar water heaters (used by almost every apartment in
Israel). Is an apparatus that traps the rays of the sun, enabling it to heat the water coursing through
its pipes, considered like the hot springs, or as if the sun itself is heating the water? (See below)

Even if we say that it is more like the hot springs, is there any way that the turning of the faucet,
which allows cold water to enter and be cooked by the hot water that is already there, is considered
indirect enough that this should be considered permitted when the prohibition to start off with is
only a Rabbinic decree?

Without getting into the entire topic, there were some Poskim who were lenient.2 However, most
poskim rule that using the hot water from a solar water heater on Shabbos is forbidden.3

How to Cook the Passover Sacrifice

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

In the Mishna on yesterday’s daf we learned that the Passover sacrifice must be roasted and cannot
be boiled in water or other liquids.

Rav Hisda teaches that if someone cooks food on Shabbat by using the heat from the hot-springs
in Tiberias, he is not held liable for cooking on Shabbat (one of the 39 prohibited
activities on Shabbat), but he would be held liable for cooking the Passover sacrifice, which, as
we learned, is forbidden, were he to do it in the hot-springs. Rava explains that the hot-springs in
Tiberias are not considered “fire” with regard to the rules and regulations of Shabbat, so no formal
cooking takes place. On Passover, although it would not be considered cooking, neither is it
considered broiling, which is what one must do in order to fulfill the mitzva of tzli esh

‫ֵאשׁ ח‬-‫ ְצִלי‬:‫ ַבַּלּ ְיָלה ַהֶזּה‬,‫ַהָבָּשׂר‬-‫ְוָאְכלוּ ֶאת‬ 8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire,
‫ְמֹר ִרים י ֹאְכֻלהוּ‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫וַּמצּוֹת‬. and unleavened bread; with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

‫ וָּבֵשׁל ְמֻבָשּׁל ט‬,‫תּ ֹאְכלוּ ִמֶמּנּוּ ָנא‬-‫ַאל‬ 9 Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast
‫ְכּ ָרָﬠיו‬-‫ ר ֹאשׁוֹ ַﬠל‬,‫ֵאשׁ‬-‫ְצִלי‬-‫ ִכּי ִאם‬:‫ַבָּמּ ִים‬ with fire; its head with its legs and with the inwards
‫ִק ְרבּוֹ‬-‫ ְוַﬠל‬. thereof.

Ex 12:8-9

The Me’iri points out that there are variant readings in the Gemara as to whether the source that
is quoted is

2
see Har Tzvi Orach Chaim 1:188 and R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in the first edition of Shemiras Shabbos k’Hilchasah
3
see subsequent versions of Shemiras Shabbos, Minchas Yitzchak 4:44, and others
4
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim41/

12
Pasuk 8 – And they shall eat the meat that night, roasted by fire…
or
Pasuk 9 – It should not be eaten raw, nor boiled in, rather roasted by fire…
The difference between the sources is whether the method under discussion is considered
negation of a positive commandment (8) or transgression of a negative one (9).

The very suggestion that the Pesah might be cooked in the hot-springs of Tiberias is a strange one.
The Passover sacrifice, which is considered kodashim (consecration), can only be eaten within the
precincts of Jerusalem, and if removed is considered defiled and cannot be eaten! It is unlikely that
the Gemara is discussing a situation where water from the hot-springs was imported to Jerusalem,
as it would have cooled down so much that it could not have cooked anything.

Although the simple explanation is to say that the Gemara is using the hot-springs of Tiberias as
an example of non-fire-related cooking methods, which would apply, for example, to cooking in
water heated by the sun – or, perhaps, by microwaves – (this appears to be the approach to the
Mishna suggested by Maimonides), Rav Shlomo ha-Kohen suggests that the reference might be to
a historical period before the Temple was built, when the sacrifice could be brought anywhere in
Israel.

EATING THE KORBAN PESACH IN ANY MANNER OTHER THAN

ROASTED

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes5

The Beraisa suggests that "one should be liable [for Malkus if he eats the Korban Pesach] when it
is overly roasted (burnt)," or if he eats it raw, just as one is liable if he eats the Korban when it is
"Na" (partially roasted) or "Mevushal" (cooked). The Beraisa concludes that the Torah says that
one is liable only if he eats the Korban Pesach when it is "Na" or "Mevushal," but not when it is
burnt or raw.

Why does the Beraisa need to teach that one is punished with Malkus only for "Na" and
"Mevushal" but for nothing else? The Torah explicitly states that one may not eat the Korban
Pesach only when it is "Na" or "Mevushal." Why would we have thought that one should be
punished with Malkus if he eats the Korban Pesach burnt or raw? (MAHARSHA)

The verse concludes that one may not eat the Korban Pesach when it is "Na" or "Mevushal," but
only when it is "roasted on a fire." The Gemara later (41b) says that this part of the verse also
expresses a Lav, according to some opinions. That is, the verse teaches that one is prohibited to
eat the Korban Pesach prepared in any state other than roasted (see Rashi to 41b, DH Lokeh
Shtayim). Therefore, we might have thought that one who eats the Korban burnt or raw is punished
with Malkus. (MAHARSHA)

5
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-041.htm

13
However, if the verse indeed prohibits one from eating the Korban Pesach in any state other than
roasted, why does the Beraisa conclude that one is not punished with Malkus if he eats it burnt or
raw?

According to TOSFOS (41b, DH Ika), the requirement to eat the Korban Pesach "only roasted on
a fire" is considered a Lav only under certain circumstances. It is considered a Lav with regard to
eating the Korban "Na" or "Mevushal".6 The Torah means that a person who eats the Korban when
it is "Na" or "Mevushal" transgresses two prohibitions, and not just one. One who eats the Korban
when it was prepared any other way (overly roasted, or raw), however, transgresses only a Mitzvas
Aseh (to eat it "only roasted on a fire").

RASHI disagrees and says that "only roasted on a fire" is a Lav that prohibits eating the Korban
in any manner other than roasted. Rashi (DH Yachol) therefore suggests that one is not punished
with Malkus for eating the Pesach raw (or burnt), because the Lav that prohibits it is a "Lav
shebi'Chelalos" (a single, broad Lav that prohibits many different acts; see following Insight), and
the Tana of this Beraisa maintains that one is not punished with Malkus for transgressing a Lav
shebi'Chelalos.

Our Daf discusses various cases of cooking the meat of the Korban Pesach, and which are in
violation of cooking the offering. One case is where a person cooks the meat in water from the hot
springs of Teveria, in which case the person has done an ‫איסור‬.7

The Gemara first assumes that he is in violation of ‫מבושל ובשל‬, but according to the conclusion, he
has only failed to fulfill the mitzvah to eat the Korban as roasted—‫אש צלי‬. In considering the
assumption of the Gemara, where the meat is considered cooked, the Achronim ask how this case
can actually occur. If the water from the hot springs was brought to Yerushalayim from Teveria,
even if the water is still hot, it would have to have been brought from Teveria in some type of
container—a ‫שני כלי‬.

Yet, the rule is that hot water in a second-degree utensil is not capable of cooking ( ‫מבשל שני כלי‬
‫ )אין‬If, on the other hand, we are speaking about a case where the meat was taken outside of
Yerushalayim to Teveria, where it was placed directly into the hot springs to be cooked, then the
meat would have been disqualified simply by being taken beyond the city of Yerushalayim. An

6
since these words are written in immediate proximity to the prohibition of eating it "Na" or "Mevushal"
7
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20041.pdf

14
offering which is disqualified is not eligible for the additional ‫ לאו‬of ‫מבושל בשל‬. Some want to
suggest (Pri Yitzchok 1:20) that here we are dealing with natural hot springs situated in
Yerushalayim itself.

The reference to “the hot springs of Teveria” is a generic term which refers to any hot springs.
Therefore, there is no problem of the meat having been removed from Yerushalayim. Others ( ‫כהן‬
‫( מראה‬want to say that the meat was taken out of the city of Yerushalayim, but the case is speaking
about a time when the Beis HaMikdash was not built, and private altars were in use. Here, we are
dealing with a Korban Pesach which was brought on a ‫ במה‬in Teveria, and then cooked in the hot
springs located there.

A third approach (Pardes Yosef to Ex 12:9) is based upon the Midrash (Shir HaShirim Rabba #7),
which tells us that at the time of Moshiach, the city of Yerushalayim will expand to include the
entire Eretz Yisroel. It is at such a time when the hot springs of Teveria will be in Yerushalayim
itself.

Finally, a fourth answer is given (Imrei Yosher 1:55) that the Gemara is discussing meat from the
Korban which was first roasted, and then cooked in water brought in a ‫ שני כלי‬from Teveria.
Although a secondary utensil does not cook, when the meat has been softened by being roasted,
even such water can cook it further.

Just as water does not affect the taste yet is still forbidden (i.e., one cannot cook his Paschal
lamb in water) other liquids which do affect the taste of course should be forbidden…How do
we know one may not cook his offering in other liquids, the verse states “cooked” … what is
the practical difference between the two opinions? “Tzli Kadar” (Rashi explains, something
cooked without water but cooked in its own melted fats.)

This argument only has ramifications with regards to getting lashes in a beis din (Jewish court of
law). But both opinions would agree that a positive injunction1 was violated, for the Torah says
that the Pascal offering must be prepared through roasting on a fire and not with any liquids.

The Aruch HaShulchan (2) also says that this dispute even has ramifications today. We will learn
later (53a) that we do not eat roasted items on the eve of Passover for it appears as if we are eating
the Paschal lamb beyond the specified areas where it is permissible to eat sacrifices. Therefore,
“tzli kadar,” which all agree is forbidden to be used for the Pesach offering (for the opinions in the
Gemara only dispute the issue of whether lashes would be given), can be eaten on Passover

15
evening, for no one would suspect a person of eating such meat in place of his Pesach offering.
Therefore, the Aruch HaShulchan concludes that one may eat “tzli kadar” on the Seder night.

The Magen Avrohom (3), however, forbids eating such meat at the seder. Even meats which were
cooked (in water) and were subsequently roasted are forbidden because of mar’is ayin (4)8 for an
onlooker would not know that the meat is indeed “tzli kadar”. This is also the opinion of the G’raz
and the Mishna Brura who say that the custom is to forbid such food.

Nonetheless, the opinion of the Sha’arei T’shuva (5) is: “Anything which was cooked in a
gravy/soup even if afterwards the liquids were cooked out, is still considered a cooked food and
not a roasted one.”

8
a law that prohibits doing actions which an onlooker might misinterpret as forbidden, even if technically nothing was done wrong

16
BISHUL

Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon writes:9

Heat Source10

The Prohibition of Bishul — Action or Result?

Is it the specific action of bishul that is forbidden, or is any action that brings about the result
of bishul prohibited? In other words, is there a possibility to cook on Shabbat in a way that is not
forbidden, or perhaps any act that brings the food to a cooked status is forbidden?

Cooking by Indirect Solar Heat

The Mishna (Shabbes 38b) states:

One must not place an egg at the side of a kettle for it to be rolled [cooked],[1] and one must not
break it into a cloth [that was heated up by the sun]; but Rabbi Yosi permits it. Furthermore, one
may not put it in sand or road dust for it to be roasted.

This mishna deals with two ways to cook an egg: toledot ha-esh (igneous byproduct) and toledot
ha-chamma (solar byproduct). In each case, the egg is not being fried directly; instead, it is an
object that has been heated up for another purpose or for no purpose at all that is being utilized to
fry the egg: the kettle has been heated over a flame, while the cloth, sand or dirt has been heated
by the sun. This mishna indicates that bishul with an igneous byproduct is forbidden, while using
a solar byproduct is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yosi and the Chakhamim.[2]

Cooking in the Sun

However, the Gemara (39a) explains that Rabbi Yosi and the Chakhamim disagree
about bishul with solar byproducts, but not about cooking in the sun itself.

R. Nachman said: “In the sun, all agree that it is permitted; in a fire-heated object, all agree that it
is forbidden. Where do they differ? They differ concerning a sun-heated object: one holds that
we forbid a sun-heated object on account of a fire-heated object, while the other holds that we do
not forbid it.”

9
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-02-iii-heat-source
10
Translated by Rav Yoseif Bloch

17
Conclusion — Three Heat Sources

Thus, we must distinguish between three heat sources:

Fire or its byproducts: biblically forbidden (the Gemara notes: “One who rolls is liable to bring
a sin-offering”).

Sun: permissible even ab initio.

Solar byproducts (namely, an object heated by the sun): according to Rabbi Yosi, this is
permissible; however according to the Chakhamim, this is rabbinically forbidden, as there is a
decree lest one come to cook with an igneous byproduct. This is the halakhic ruling (Rambam,
22:9; Shulchan Arukh OC 318:3).

Reason to Allow Cooking in the Sun

Why is one allowed to cook in the sun ab initio?

Rashi (s.v. De-sharei) explains:

For this is not its way of cooking (derekh bishul). No one would ever confuse fire with the sun,
so there is no reason to decree against the latter because of the former.

In other words, there is no prohibition to cook in the sun, because this is not derekh bishul, and
even the Chakhamim do not decree against this as they decree against solar byproducts,
since there is no need to be concerned that someone will err and confuse cooking in the sun
(permitted) with cooking over a flame (forbidden).

Apparently, Rashi’s words are difficult. Normally, introducing a shinnui (nuance in the manner
of performing an action) means that an act is no longer melekhet machshevet (thoughtful labor),
and one is no longer liable on the biblical level. However, the act remains rabbinically
banned. Why should the fact that solar cooking is not derekh bishul constitute a reason to allow it
ab initio?

A) The results are inferior.

The Eglei Tal (Ofeh 44) responds that the intent is not for a shinnui in the act of bishul, but
a shinnui in the quality and result of the act of bishul. Cooking in the sun is qualitatively
different from cooking in the fire; the effect of the flame on the food is different than the effect of
the sun. Writing with one’s left hand is a shinnui, but it only puts the action into the realm of
rabbinical prohibition, because the result is identical. Cooking in the sun, on the other hand, brings
about an altered result. This is a characteristic shinnui that removes the name of the melakha, and
therefore he allows this ab initio:

18
Clearly, it matters whether there is a shinnui in the action or the shinnui is only in the actor… If
one writes with the left hand, the essence of the act remains the letter that is produced, and in this
there is no shinnui; the only shinnui is in the person doing it: one performed the action with the
left, while it is normally done with the right…

When one cooks with fire, the flame has an effect on the food, and one instead cooked in the sun;
it is the sun that has an effect on the food, so that there is a shinnui in the cooking being
done… Thus, there is no further need for the reason of melekhet machshevet, because it is not
considered cooking at all… Therefore, since one who cooks in the sun alters the object itself, it is
permissible to do so ab initio.

B) It is not a generally accepted way of cooking.

In Iggerot Moshe (OC, Vol. III, ch. 52), Rav Moshe Feinstein explains Rashi’s words in a different
way. According to him, Rashi does not intend to say that cooking in the sun is allowed because
of shinnui, i.e., that one performs a forbidden labor in an uncommon way, so that one is no longer
performing melekhet machshevet. Rather, he maintains, that cooking in the sun is not included at
all in the melakha of bishul, because cooking in the Mishkan was done only via fire.

While it is true that generally even activities that were not found in the Mishkan are forbidden
as toladot if they are similar to the melakhot that were done in the Mishkan, this is
different. Bishul in the sun is not considered a melakha similar to bishul in fire, since cooking
over a flame is a common and accepted way to cook, while cooking in the sun is not a conventional
way to cook at all. This is the intent of Rashi: since this is not its derekh bishul, this act is not
included in the melakha of bishul:

When it comes to cooking in the sun, there is no Shabbat prohibition, as Rashi notes
on Shabbat 39a — the Ran writes something similar — because this is not derekh bishul. Now, it
is clear that even though cooking in the Mishkan used a flame, nevertheless, it would have been
appropriate to derive solar cooking from it, as a tolada, because for every av melakha in
the Mishkan, we derive that one is liable also for all acts that are similar to the avot. One is just as
liable for these, and they are called toladot. Therefore, Rashi must explain that we do not derive
solar cooking from igneous cooking, which was found in the Mishkan, because this is
not derekh bishul.

The Eglei Tal bases the distinction on the result; according to Rav Feinstein, the distinction is in
the act: since solar cooking is an act that is not accepted, it is not defined as bishul at all.

C) The Torah forbids only cooking over a flame.

The words of a number of Rishonim indicate that the allowance to cook in the sun is based on the
fact that the melakha of bishul forbidden by the Torah includes only cooking utilizing fire

19
and its byproducts. For example, the Me’iri (Pesachim 41a) writes, “one is liable for cooking
only for igneous byproducts.” This is also implied by the words of the Rambam (9:6),
concerning bishul of metal: “This is the rule: one is liable for cooking whether one softens a hard
mass in the fire or hardens a soft mass.” The Rambam adds “in the fire,” and it is implied that the
liability is only for doing so using a flame. (However, it may be that the Rambam intends only to
exclude using the sun and its byproducts). This is what the Mabbit writes in Kiryat Sefer (ch. 9):
“Bishul only apples to fire and its byproducts, because this is what was used for the dyes of
the Mishkan.”

Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo, ch. 12, n. 4) understood this to be Rashi’s view:

Even though Rashi writes on Shabbat 39a that cooking in the sun is permitted by all because this
is not its derekh bishul, nevertheless, it appears that even if people do cook in a given way using
the sun, such as via a solar heater and the like, one is still not liable for doing so…

Indubitably, Rashi’s intent is that this is not called bishul… they had a tradition that [when it comes
to bishul] we require specifically that the act be comparable to what was done in the Mishkan,
where bishul was via fire and its byproducts, and nothing else.

According to him, the Sages have a tradition that bishul must be “comparable to what was done in
the Mishkan,” where they cooked specifically using fire and its byproducts. Rashi’s intent, if so,
is that there is a biblical rule that using the sun is not the way of cooking; therefore, this type of
cooking is categorically excluded from bishul, and this is not dependent on human custom.

Summary: Why is Cooking in the Sun Permitted?

In conclusion, cooking in the sun directly is unquestionably permitted. There are three approaches
as to why:

a. Eglei Tal: the result of cooking in the sun is not as good as the result of cooking over fire.
b. Rav Feinstein: the act of cooking in the sun is not forbidden because it is not the way of
the world to cook in this way.
c. Rav Auerbach (as implied by some Rishonim): the act of cooking in the sun is not
forbidden because the Torah defines the melakha of bishul solely as cooking using fire.

COOKING IN A MICROWAVE

The electromagnetic spectrum spans, in order of increasing frequency and decreasing wavelength,
radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma
rays.[3] Every one of these types of radiation is different, and every type is absorbed by some
substances and reflected by others. For example, visible light is reflected by many substances, but
it passes through clear glass. Infrared radiation, on the other hand, is also absorbed by clear glass
and warms it.

20
Microwave radiation is absorbed by liquids, but not by solids (for the most part). When a food is
heated in a microwave oven, the radiation causes the liquids inside a food to be heated, and those
liquids heat the solid part of it. The result of cooking in a microwave (which does not brown the
food) is also different: the original color of the food remains, and its taste is somewhat different
from that of a food cooked in the normal way.

By Torah law, it is it permissible to cook in a microwave on Shabbat? This question depends

on the different reasons that we have seen for the allowance to cook using the sun.

Cooking in a Microwave is Biblically Forbidden

Rav Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, OC, Vol. III, ch. 52) writes that since nowadays (1971) it is
ordinary to cook in the microwave (and even if there is a regular oven in the house, people
sometimes prefer the microwave), there must be a biblical prohibition:

If so, in the microwave oven, that it is as good as cooking in an actual flame, and those who have
it use it more than a flame, and the fact that these are not widespread [in Rav Moshe Feinstein’s
time] is because they are not yet common, but when they will be common, everyone will certainly
use them, because they are better, so one may certainly derive from bishul over a flame that was
in the Mishkan, with the significance of a tolada, that it is for all laws like the av of bishul through
flame for a prohibition and for liability for sin-offering or stoning.

Cooking in a Microwave is Biblically Permitted

According to the view of the Eglei Tal, on the other hand, there would not be any Torah prohibition
involved in cooking in a microwave, because the result of bishul in it is very different from
cooking in an oven.

Similarly, according to Rav Auerbach, there is no biblical prohibition of cooking in a microwave,

since this is not a fire, and this is totally different from bishul. According to his approach, we
should prefer cooking in a microwave when we need to prepare food for a dangerously ill person
(see Nishmat Avraham, 2nd ed., 318:1, n. 3).[4]

Other Problems with Using a Microwave

We should point out that using a microwave on Shabbat involves additional halakhic problems:

a) Completing an electrical circuit — according to the Chazon Ish (50:9), this constitutes a
violation of building (boneh) and destroying (soter). However, in Minchat Shlomo (ch. 11) we
find a dissenting view, and this is the accepted ruling.
b) Sparks created by completing the circuit — it is generally accepted that there is no inherent
biblical prohibition in this (Chazon Ish loc. cit. s.v. U-le’inyan; Minchat Shlomo 10:7; Yabbia
Omer, Vol. V, OC, 27:4).

Summary: Cooking with Alternative Sources of Heat

21
Practically, we forbid cooking even by using a heat source other than fire, for example, a
microwave or chemical means; however, the halakhic authorities argue whether there is a Torah
prohibition involved. According to the Eglei Tal, if the result is comparable to
regular bishul, there is a biblical prohibition. According to Rav Feinstein, if this is an accepted
way of bishul, there will be a Torah prohibition in this. On the other hand, Rav S.Z. Auerbach
holds that there is no biblical prohibition unless one cooks using a flame, as it was done in
the Mishkan. 11

COOKING IN THE SUN

Chazal discuss other methods of cooking such as Toldos ohr, chama (sun), and Toldos chama.

Rav Yitzchak Berkovits writes:12

Orach Chayim 318:13: Toldos Chama

11 [1]
Rashi (s.v. Bishvil) explains that bishul is referred to here with the term “gilgul” (rolling) because a hard-boiled egg usually
rolls (see Derisha 318:3). However, the Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishna (3:3), explains that the egg becomes mixed in
the process of cooking, and the term gilgul refers to mixing or stirring.
[2]
Rabbi Yosei (Gemara ibid.) in fact concedes that one may not put an egg into sun-heated sand; however, this is only because
of ancillary prohibitions such as insulation or moving dirt.
[3]
See also Professor Ze'ev Lev's essay on this, Techumin VIII, pp. 21-36, as well as in his book Maarkhei Lev, ch. 11.
[4]
The halakhic status of salting and pickling on Shabbat is also affected by this argument. From the words of the
Ran (Avoda Zara 38b, Rif), it appears that since we have a principle when it comes to prohibited foods that “salting is like boiling,”
salting is considered like cooking, and one who salts a food on Shabbat (with a great quantity of salt) should be liable for bishul.
Similarly, the Noda Bi-Yehuda writes (2nd ed., YD, end ch. 60) that since we say “pickling is like cooking,” anyone who pickles
food and makes it edible is biblically liable for bishul. These views are apparently feasible according to the view of Rav Feinstein
that the prohibition of bishul includes every acceptable act that renders a food “cooked,” but according to the view of Rav S.Z.
Auerbach, it cannot be that one should forbid salting and pickling on a biblical level because of bishul, as bishul requires the use
of fire or its byproducts. According to the Eglei Tal as well, one should not be liable for this, since the results of salting and pickling
are different from the results of bishul. Indeed, the Ramban (Avoda Zara 74b) writes that one is not liable for salting as a variant
of bishul, and this is the view of most Acharonim: one is not liable for salting or pickling as a form of bishul (see, e.g., Chokhmat
Adam 58:1).
12
https://www.ohrreuven.com/pdf/night_semicha/Night%20Semicha%20Program%20Bishul%20Shiur%208.pdf

22
3. Just as it is forbidden to cook with fire, it is forbidden to cook with Toldas ha’ur (translation:
Items that were on the fire), for example: to roast an egg by placing it beside a pot (hot from the
fire), or to crack an egg over a garment heated on the fire. It is even forbidden to cook with
Toldas ha’Chamah (translation: Items that were heated from the sun), for example: a garment
hot from the sun, for fear that one will cook with Toldas ha’ur. It is also forbidden to place (the
egg) inside sand or dust heated by the sun, but it is permitted in the sun itself, for example: to
heat an egg by placing it in the sun, or to heat water by placing it in the sun.

3: Just as it is forbidden to cook in a fire, it is forbidden to cook in Toldos ohr. For example, [it is
forbidden] to put an egg next to a hot pot or to break it onto a kerchief that was heated by the fire,
in order to roast it. And [it is forbidden to cook] even with Toldos chama; for example, a kerchief
that was heated in the sun –this is a gezeira [to protect from] Toldos ohr. Similarly, it is forbidden
to surround it in sand or dust that was heated in the sun. However, with regards to the sun itself,
for example to put an egg in the sun or to put water in the sun so that it will heat up – that is
permitted.

Why is it Mutar to Cook in the Sun?

Source 3: Rashi, Shabbos, 39a, Dh: Deshari:

Rashi explains that it is mutar to cook something in the sun because, “it is not the way to cook
using the sun.” There is considerable debate amongst the Acharonim as to what Rashi means, and
to the practical ramifications of Rashi’s explanation. Does Rashi mean that it is mutar to cook in
the sun because it is considered a shinui (change)? Moreover, what would happen if it became
normal to cook in the sun (or with any other medium that isn’t fire) – would it then become assur
midoraisa or would it remain mutar?

Source 4: Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa, New Edition, Chapter 1, Hearah 145:

The Shemiras Shabbos asks that now that it is normal to heat things using the sun, perhaps it is
assur midoraisa.

23
Source 5: Kiryat Sefer of the Mabit, Shabbos, Chapter 9:

The Mabit explains that one is not chayav for cooking using the sun, because only cooking with a
fire is considered to be the kind of bishul that the Torah forbade, since in the Mishkan the cooking
was done with fire. This seems to contradict Rashi’s explanation, in that the implication of the
Mabit is that one could never be chayav for cooking using the sun even if it became normal to do
so.

Source 6: Mishna, Shabbos, 38b, Gemara, 39a:

The Tanna Kama and R’Yosi argue as to what is the status of Chamei Teveria (the hot springs of
Tiberias). R’Yosi holds that it is considered Toldos ohr because it is heated by the heat of
Gehinnom, whereas the Tanna Kama holds that it is only considered to be Toldos chama. Rav
Berkovits points out that this Gemara seems to imply that the question of whether something cooks
is not dependent on whether it is normal to
cook that way, because if it was, then the issue should have been determined by whether or not it
was normal to cook with Chamei Teveria.

Rather, the key factor was the source of the heat – is it heat of fire or heat of the Sun? If that is true
then when Rashi said that it is not the way to cook with the sun, he may have meant that it is
intrinsically not the way to cook with the sun, regardless of whether it becomes normal to cook
that way or not.

Source 7 : Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim, Chelek 3, Simun 52:

Rav Moshe Feinstein understands Rashi to mean that cooking in the sun was mutar because it was
not the normal method of cooking but were it, or any other method of heating, to become
commonly used and effective, then it would be assur doraisa to cook that way. He even explains
that the Mabit would agree with this, even though this is not the simple understanding of the Mabit.
Based on this explanation, Rav Feinstein ruled that it should be assur midoraisa to cook something
in a microwave even though a microwave is not considered to be ‘fire’. Yet, since it has become
normal to cook food that way, it became assur midoraisa.

Toldos Chama

Whilst everyone agrees that it is mutar to cook something in the sun itself, there is a Machlokes
amongst the Tannaim as to whether it is mutar to cook something in Toldos Chama. The Tanna
Kama holds that it is assur miderabanan, but R’Yosi holds that it is mutar.

Source 8: Shulchan Aruch, Simun 318, Sif 3, Mishna Berurah, Sif kattan 21:

24
The Mechaber rules like the Tanna Kama; therefore, it is assur to cook food in anything that is
considered to be Toldos Chama. This halacha is most relevant to the question of using hot water
from a Dud Shemesh (solar-heated water boiler).

Dud Shemesh

Source 9: Yabia Omer, Chelek 4, Simun 34, Orach Chaim, Os 1:

When a person turns on the hop tap, cold water mixes with hot water that was heated by the sun –
that hot water is considered to be Toldos chama and the cold water is cooked by that. Therefore, it
should be assur miderabanan to turn on the hot water. Rav Ovadia Yosef is lenient because of a
combination of reasons – one of them was that he argued that the person turning on the tap is not
thinking about the cold water being heated, therefore it is a psik reisha, and since the issur in this
case is only miderabanan, he notes that several Acharonim hold that a psik reisha of an issur
derabbanan is mutar.

Source 10: Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa, First Edition, Chapter 1, Sif 29, Hearah 67:

In the first Volume of Shemiras Shabbos, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is quoted as permitting
using hot water in a Dud Shemesh – his argument was that the reason for the gezeira not to cook
in Toldos chama was to prevent a person coming to think that it is mutar to cook in Toldos ohr,

25
but Rav Auerbach argued that no-one would make such a mistake with a Dud Shemesh as it was
designated for water that was heated by the sun. (This volume was written before the electric
element was added that enabled the water to be heated through electricity.)

Source 10: Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa, New Edition, Chapter 1, Sif 51, Hearah 145:

When they added the electric element Rav Auerbach changed his ruling and said that one should
refrain from using the hot water. Rav Auerbach himself held that this is really not considered to
be Bishul b’tolodos chama which is assur, rather he saw it as bishul b’chama which is mutar.

Halacha Lemaaseh

Microwaves –

Rav Moshe Feinstein holds that since a microwave is a normal and effective way of cooking, it is
assur midoraisa to cook food in a microwave on Shabbos. Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv and ybl”ct,
Rav Shmuel Wosner agreed with Rav Feinstein. Rav Shlomo-Zalman Auerbach holds that since a
microwave is not fire there is no issur of bishul involved in using a microwave (needless to say
there would be other issurim). Rav Berkovits rules like Rav Auerbach. A possible practical
difference between Rav Feinstein and Rav Auerbach is if someone cooked food in a microwave
on Shabbos. According to Rav Feinstein it would have the regular halachos of Maaseh Shabbos5F
6 but according to Rav Auerbach there would be strong reason to allow one to eat the food since
it wasn’t cooked in a halachic sense. Other forms of heating that do not use fire (for example,
through chemical reactions), are mutar as long as they are not commonly used.

Cooking in the Sun or in Something Heated by the Sun

It is mutar to cook in the sun. It is assur miderabanan to cook in Toldos chama. Accordingly, many
Poskim (including Rav Elyashiv, The Minchas Yitzchak, Rav Shmuel Wosner, Rav Nissim
Karelitz, and Rav Berkovits) rule that it is assur miderabanan to use the hot water tap when it was
heated by a Dud Shemesh as it causes cold water to mix with the hot water. There are Poskim who
were lenient for various reasons –13And as we have seen, Rav Auerbach seemed to lean towards
the lenient opinion. According to the strict opinion it would nonetheless be mutar to turn on the
hot water tap with a shinui (for example, with one’s elbow) for a choleh she’ein boh sakana –
someone who is considerably unwell (even if it is not life-threatening). It would also be mutar to
ask a Non-Jew to turn on the hot water for a Tsorech Mitzva or Hefsed. There is a question as to
whether it is mutar to cook something using a magnifying glass – the glass focuses the sun’s rays
in such a way that they become far more intense. Some poskim consider this to be bishul b’chama
and is mutar since the sun is heating the object. Others consider it to be Toldos chama and is assur
because the glass is the reason that the cooking is taking place.

13
these include The Har Tzvi (Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank), the Tsitz Eliezer (Rav Eliezer Waldenburg), Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav
Bentsion Abba Shaul.

26
Solar heater on Shabbos?

Sperling writes:14

Solar heated hot water is widespread in Israel – and is sure to become more and more available
throughout the world as time goes on. It is a relatively simple system.

Let me give a brief description. Instead of a tank of water being heated up with an electrical
element, or a gas flame, the water in the tank is connected to a solar panel through a pipe. This
panel is really just a shallow metal box with black plastic tubing running up and down inside the
length of the box. To close off the panel, a sheet is glass is placed over the front of it. The water in
the tank runs into the tubing inside the panel. As the sun shines through the glass onto the black
tubing, the water inside the panel heats up. As hot water rises naturally, the water in the panel rises
up and “pushes” its way through the tubing, eventually leaving the panel through a pipe at the top,
to return through this second pipe into the tank. As the tank is already full of water, this hot water
that enters the tank near top, pushes new water, from the bottom of the tank, into the panel through
the first pipe. This new cold water will itself get heated up via the sun, and, after running the length
of the black piping in the solar panel, return to the tank. This constant movement of water will
occur as long as the sun shines in the panel, causing the water to heat up, and so rise upwards
through the laws of physics.

So, with no electricity, no motor, pump or power, the sunlight itself heats up the water (via the
sheet of glass and black piping) constantly, providing free hot water as long as there is sunshine.
Now to the question of Shabbat.

14
https://www.yeshiva.co/ask/55066

27
The Talmud rules that it is permitted to heated up and cook food in the sun on Shabbat. So, one is
allowed to hold an egg out in the sun in Elat, and (if it's really hot out) eat the boiled egg after it
gets cooked on Shabat by the sun. However, it is forbidden (rules the Talmud) to cook food in
something that was itself heated up by the sun. So, it is forbidden to put a frying pan out in the sun
in Elat, and then fry an egg on the now hot pan.

The reason for the difference is that cooking in the sun itself does not come under the definition
of “cooking” that is forbidden on Shabbat. Whereas, the Rabbis forbade cooking in the sun-heated
frying pan, as this could lead people to cooking in a fire-heated pan, something that is very much
considered as forbidden cooking. (Both cooking directly over a flame, or cooking with a something
that was itself heated in the fire is considered as forbidden Shabat cooking).

When we examine the solar power system it would seem, at first glance to be a case of heating up
the water in the sun directly (and thus permitted). The fact that the glass panel, and the black tubing
direct the sunlight to the water is considered by most Rabbis to still be “direct” sun cooking.
(Although there is one strict opinion on this question – the vast majority of Rabbis understand the
glass as merely focusing the sun's rays, and not getting hot itself, to heat up the water). But – and
here is the major point of debate about using solar water heaters on Shabbat – an issue arising
when turning on the hot water tap in one's house.

At that point, the hot water in the tank starts flowing out to the tap. At the very same time, new
cold water is drawn into the tank from the local water supply. This new cold water will eventually
find its way into the solar panel, and become heated up. But until it reaches the panel, it will sit in
the bottom of the tank (recalling that hot water naturally rises to the top of the tank, the cold water
will stay at the bottom). While it sits there, the other water in the tank – which has already been
heated up by the sun – will start heating this new cold water.

That is, the hot water in the tank will directly start heating up the new cold water that runs into the
tank, before this new cold water can find its way into the panels to be heated up by the sun. Now
we, perhaps, have a situation where the hot water in the tank is equivalent to our pan that was
heated in the sun.

Just as the Rabbis forbade cooking food on a pan heated in the sun, perhaps it is forbidden to use
the solar hot water system because by turning on the hot tap, one (without perhaps even knowing
it) puts new cold water on a “pan” of sun-heated hot water.

Great Rabbis have debated this question. Perhaps one of the more famous responsa on this question
was a classic response written by the late Rav Ovadia Yosef zt” l, in which he examined the issue
from every side – and in the end permitted the use of the solar heated water on Shabat. His logic
includes questions of intent when turning of the tap, and issues of how directly one's actions lead
to the influx of cold water. Because the turning on of the hot tap is so far removed from any intent
to heat up the new cold water, and because the new cold water will in any even be heated up by
the sun, this is not considered as a forbidden act of direct cooking.

28
Other Rabbis have forbidden it's use – notably Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt” l in Shemirat
Shabbat KeHilchatah (2nd and 3rd editions). He was very concerned by the fact that in winter we
heat the water up with electricity or gas (in the same tank and use the same tap), perhaps leading
to a situation where using the solar heated water could cause one to come to use the forbidden
water in winter.

There are very many other arguments made on both sides of the question – too many to be quoted
here. Just be assured that every possible claim for and against has be raised by some of the leading
Rabbis of the last 50 years.

Solar Heating and the “Dud Shemesh”

Rabbi Ari Enkin writes:15

15
https://outorah.org/p/71651/

29
Although cooking on Shabbat in the normal manner is generally forbidden, cooking by
the direct heat of the sun is often permitted. The rabbis permitted making direct use of the sun's
heat because cooking in this way does not resemble the normal manner of cooking.[1]

As such, one is permitted to fry an egg outdoors in the heat of the sun on Shabbat. However,
cooking through indirect solar heat is forbidden. Therefore, one would not be permitted to leave a
frying pan out in the hot sun in order for it to heat up, and then use the heated pan to fry an egg
indoors. The rabbis prohibited doing so lest onlookers be led to believe that the pan was heated in
the normal weekday manner -- in violation of Shabbat -- and not by means of the sun.

A more common and practical application of solar heating relates to the “dud shemesh,” - the
residential solar water heaters that are common in Israel. There is much discussion on whether it
is permitted to make use of the water that is heated in such boilers on Shabbat. In order to properly
understand the arguments on each side of the issue, it is important to understand how these solar
water heaters work.

In most models, cold water enters the hot water tank through a hose attached at its bottom. Inside
the tank there is special piping which includes a heating element that traps heat generated by the
sun in order to heat the water as it passes through the piping. When the water inside the piping
reaches the desired temperature, it is sent to the top of the tank to be used. This cycle continues
until all the water in the tank has been heated to the desired temperature. The hottest water is that
which is at the top of the tank and from there it flows throughout the house whenever a hot water
faucet is turned on.[2]
There are two primary questions concerning the permissibility of using these solar water heaters
on Shabbat. One is whether the piping that traps the sun's heat and then heats the cold water that
passes through it is considered to be a direct or indirect use of the sun's heat. The other question
is whether the cold water that enters the tank after hot water is removed (from using the faucets)
is being "cooked" by the hot water that is already there.

A number of authorities permit the use of these solar heaters. This is because even though it may
appear that the water is being heated by a secondary device (the piping), and not by the sun itself,
it is argued that since the pipes merely store the heat produced by the sun and do not inherently
heat the water, the heating process is still deemed to be direct use of the sun.[3] Rav Shlomo
Zalman Auerbach is also among those who argued that the mechanics of a solar water heater is
considered to be "direct solar heat" and permitted their use on Shabbat.[4] It must be noted,
however, that if there is any electricity involved in heating the water then it would not be permitted
to use the water. Therefore, when using hot water from the tank on Shabbat one must be sure that
it was heated by solar heat only (e.g., “the button” must be off).

Other authorities disagree and rule that the mechanics of a solar water heater cannot be categorized
as a process of direct solar heat. They argue that regardless of whether the piping actually heats
the water, it is a vital component in heating the water, nonetheless. Indeed, if one were to simply
place the water tank in the sun without the assistance of the special piping, the water would never
get as hot as it does. As such, they rule that solar water heaters work with indirect solar heat.
Therefore, they may not be used on Shabbat. Furthermore, these authorities argue that even if the

30
manner in which the solar heaters operate can be categorized as direct solar heat, one would still
need to justify permitting the use of the cold water that enters the tank every time hot water is
removed. This is because the cold water that enters the tank is immediately heated by the hot water
that is already there! Therefore, the cold water is essentially being heated through a form of
"indirect" solar heating, which is forbidden.[5]

Nevertheless, a number of authorities, including Rav Ovadia Yosef, permit the use of these solar
water heaters for a completely different consideration. This is because, as mentioned, the
prohibition against making indirect use of the sun’s heat on Shabbat is a rabbinic enactment. There
is a general rule that a rabbinically prohibited action, performed on Shabbat in an indirect manner,
is permissible. In this case, any possible forbidden actions (using the hot water that was heated
indirectly by the sun and the heating of the cold water as it enters the tank) is rabbinic in nature
and is being done indirectly (by simply turning on the tap) and is therefore permitted. This situation
is known as a “pesik reisha, al yedei gramma, b’issur derabanon” (an inevitable action, caused by
secondary force, in a rabbinical prohibition). An action will almost always be permissible when
the issue is one of “pesik reisha, al yedei gramma, b’issur derabanon”.[6]

One can also argue that the use of these solar water heaters is one of “pesik reisha d’lo nicha lei”
which is when one has no interest or need for an automatically resulting melacha. Although one
may not perform a pesik reisha d’lo nicha lei when dealing with a possible biblical prohibition,
many authorities permit pesik reisha d’lo nicha lei when the issue revolves around a rabbinical
prohibition.[7] The reason why the use of the solar water heaters can be considered a situation
of pesik reisha d’lo nicha lei is because the amount of hot water in the tank is surely enough to
provide for all of one’s Shabbat needs, such as washing one’s hands and face or washing the dishes,
without the need for additional water to be added on Shabbat itself. As such, one has no true need
or interest in the cold water that inevitably enters the tank and is heated up by the water that is
currently there.[8]

Notes

[1] Shabbat 38b-39a,Rashi; OC 318:3.

[2] Yabia Omer 4:34; See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_hot_water#Types.
[3] Tzitz Eliezer 7:19; Yabia Omer 4:34; Har Tzvi, OC 188.
[4] Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 1:45 footnote 127.
[5] Minchat Yitzchak 4:44.
[6] Har Tzvi, OC 188; Or Yitzchak 164.
[7] This issue is discussed in the Yabia Omer 4:34 cited above.
[8] For a list of authorities on both sides of the issue, see Rivevot Ephraim 3:263.

Rabbi Ari N. Enkin, a resident of Ramat Beit Shemesh, is a researcher and writer of
contemporary halachic issues. He is the author of the “Dalet Amot of Halacha” series (8
volumes), Rabbinic Director of United with Israel and a RA”M at a number of yeshivot.
www.rabbienkin.com

31
How an Israeli Solar Solution Can Benefit the U.S. and the World
Avi Jorisch writes:16
America is undergoing a quiet clean-energy revolution. Renewable resources such as solar, wind,
hydro- and nuclear power produce more than a third of the country’s energy, and this sector is
growing at a rate several times faster than the national economy. Many would be surprised to learn
that this revolution has its roots in research done in the 1950s in Israel, where home use of solar
energy has been the norm for decades. As we seek alternative sources of energy to power our
society, policymakers should look to Israel for concrete ideas on utilizing solar-based innovations
to reduce our carbon footprint and help average Americans reduce their bills.
Today, nearly every state in the union harnesses the power of the sun. Forty-two states have a total
of 1,721 solar-powered electric plants, which produce 1 percent of the country’s energy. Four
states in particular have made impressive strides in exploiting the sun: California gets 10 percent
of its electricity from solar power, Nevada 6, and Vermont and Arizona 4 each. But much more
can be done, and Israel has a successful model which, if implemented throughout the United States,
would make a significant impact on the environment and on the average American’s pocketbook.

Humans have looked to the sun for energy needs for about 2,500 years, starting with the Romans,
who used glass windows to heat their pools. But solar technology made almost no progress until
about the mid-nineteenth century, when people – primarily in the United States – began using
metal tanks to heat water. By the afternoon, these tanks had enough hot water to make a warm
shower possible, but by night, the water would cool since there was no insulation.

16
http://www.thetower.org/6669-how-an-israeli-solar-solution-can-benefit-the-u-s-and-the-world/

32
It was an Israeli scientist who figured out how to harness the sun’s rays and convert them into
usable energy. Harry Zvi Tabor transformed how humans utilize energy and will be remembered
as the father of solar power.

In 1949 Tabor, a young physicist, immigrated to Israel from Great Britain. As the first director of
Israel’s National Physics Laboratory, he started thinking about research and development
possibilities. Solar energy, he decided, was a good place to start. “In a country with no raw
materials and no fuel, the sun was an obvious thing,” says Tabor. “But it wasn’t obvious to
anybody else. At that time, harnessing solar energy generally was considered an activity of
cranks.”
Tabor knew the only substance that could capture and maintain a considerable amount of heat was
polished metal, but the devices on the market used only ordinary metal. Tabor’s solution was to
blacken the metal without destroying the properties that allow it to retain heat. With a bit of luck
and hard work, he discovered which coatings would yield the desired result.

In 1955, Tabor and his team created a device to heat water using the sun’s rays and immediately
realized that it was twice as efficient as anything created before. Their innovation produced more
hot water than any previous devices and gave the solar water heater the potential to produce
electricity in significant quantities using a small turbine. This became the Tabor Selective Surface,
or in Hebrew, dud shemesh, a metal drum connected to two solar panels.

In 1976 the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, passed a law requiring every building constructed after
1980 to have solar water collectors. About 90 percent of all Israeli households use Tabor’s
invention, and many buildings in Israel are powered entirely by solar energy. The law has saved
Israel and its citizens billions of shekels in energy costs.
The Knesset’s research center estimates that the dud shemesh saves Israel 8 percent annually on
energy consumption and has provided an affordable source of hot water for generations of Israelis.
Today, Tabor’s selective surface can be found everywhere. According to the International
Energy Agency, solar water collectors are used by millions of people in 61 countries
– including Australia, Barbados, Cyprus, China and nations throughout Africa.
Governments around the globe are taking notice and increasingly providing incentives for
harnessing solar energy. As the number of droughts, storms, heat waves, rising sea levels, melting
glaciers and warming oceans increases, global demand for Tabor’s innovation will increase as
well.

In 2014, Congress passed the Strategic Partnership Act, landmark legislation that declared Israel a
major strategic partner and laid the groundwork for cooperation in a wide variety of spheres,
including energy, water, agriculture and alternative fuel technologies. U.S. energy executives and
elected officials should leverage this legislation to help proliferate Tabor’s innovation throughout
the United States. There are countless Israeli innovations, including the solar water collector,
which can help America reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and reduce energy bills. As the U.S
looks to solve 21st-century challenges, Israel can help it find practical solutions that benefit every
American.

33
 Former President Shimon Peres presents Dr. Zvi Harry Tabor the
Presidential Award at the president’s residence in
Yerushalayim, Jan. 30, 2014

Dror Halavi writes:17

Dr. Harry Zvi Tabor, the man who was responsible for one of the most ubiquitous architectural
features on Israeli rooftops – the solar water heater, or “dud shemesh” – has passed away. Dr.
Tabor, age 98, was one of the first and premier researchers on solar energy in Israel, and was

17
https://hamodia.com/2015/12/16/dr-zvi-tabor-inventor-of-dood-shemesh-is-niftar/

34
responsible for many of the country’s early advances in the field, including and especially
developing the home version of the solar water heater, which takes advantage of Israel’s copious
sunlight.

Born in London in 1917, Tabor immigrated to Israel in 1949, assisting Holocaust survivors being
held in detention camps in Cyprus to illegally sail to Israel. An advanced physics researcher, Tabor
established the National Institute for Physics, completing his doctorate at Hebrew University.

In 1955, Tabor developed the black stripping that was able to successfully collect solar energy and
connect it to a mechanism to heat water – the basis of the solar water heater. He continued
developing the project and by 1960 had installed the first solar water heaters in his home – and the
electricity and fuel-saving idea proved so popular, the rest is history.

According to government officials, solar water heaters have saved the Israeli economy tens of
billions of shekels in electricity costs, as well as significantly cutting air pollution.

After the popularization of the water heaters in the 1960s, and winning numerous scientific and
national prizes for his accomplishment, Tabor began developing other projects – including a fully
functional electric car. Unlike his previous invention, however, the Tabor electric car did not prove
as popular as the dud shemesh.

In an interview in 2007, Tabor said that the reason for that was probably that electric cars were not
really on the world’s radar at that time, although he did get inquiries from several automakers later
on who had heard about his invention.

Two years ago, Tabor received the President’s Prize for Life Accomplishment, one of Israel’s most
prestigious awards, from then-President Shimon Peres. Eulogizing Tabor in an article Tuesday,
Peres wrote that Tabor was “a symbol of Israeli innovation – a man who, with the invention of the
solar water heater, has had an impact on the lives of millions of people over many generations,
and inspiring scientists and entrepreneurs in the area of solar energy and in scientific research in
general.”

Dr Tabor died in 2015 at the age of 98.

Photovoltaic cells
Solar power is the conversion of energy from sunlight into electricity, either directly
using photovoltaics (PV), indirectly using concentrated solar power, or a combination.

Concentrated solar power systems use lenses or mirrors and solar tracking systems to focus a large
area of sunlight into a small beam.

Photovoltaic cells convert light into an electric current using the photovoltaic effect.

35
 Schematics of a grid-connected residential PV power system

A solar cell, or photovoltaic cell (PV), is a device that converts light into electric current using
the photovoltaic effect. The first solar cell was constructed by Charles Fritts in the 1880s. The
German industrialist Ernst Werner von Siemens was among those who recognized the importance
of this discovery. In 1931, the German engineer Bruno Lange developed a photo cell using silver
selenide in place of copper oxide, although the prototype selenium cells converted less than 1% of
incident light into electricity. Following the work of Russell Ohl in the 1940s, researchers Gerald
Pearson, Calvin Fuller and Daryl Chapin created the silicon solar cell in 1954. These early solar
cells cost US$286/watt and reached efficiencies of 4.5–6%. In 1957, Mohamed M.
Atalla developed the process of silicon surface passivation by thermal oxidation at Bell Labs. The
surface passivation process has since been critical to solar cell efficiency.
The array of a photovoltaic power system, or PV system, produces direct current (DC) power
which fluctuates with the sunlight's intensity. For practical use this usually requires conversion to
certain desired voltages or alternating current (AC), through the use of inverters. Multiple solar
cells are connected inside modules. Modules are wired together to form arrays, then tied to an
inverter, which produces power at the desired voltage, and for AC, the desired frequency/phase.[6]
Many residential PV systems are connected to the grid wherever available, especially in developed
countries with large markets. In these grid-connected PV systems, use of energy storage is
optional. In certain applications such as satellites, lighthouses, or in developing countries, batteries
or additional power generators are often added as back-ups. Such stand-alone power
systems permit operations at night and at other times of limited sunlight.

36
A Brief History of Solar Panels

Elizabeth Chu and D. Lawrence Tarazano write:18

Long before the first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, generating awareness about the
environment and support for environmental protection, scientists were making the first discoveries
in solar energy. It all began with Edmond Becquerel, a young physicist working in France, who in
1839 observed and discovered the photovoltaic effect— a process that produces a voltage or
electric current when exposed to light or radiant energy. A few decades later, French
mathematician Augustin Mouchot was inspired by the physicist’s work. He began registering
patents for solar-powered engines in the 1860s. From France to the U.S., inventors were inspired
by the patents of the mathematician and filed for patents on solar-powered devices as early as
1888.

Charles Fritts installed the first solar panels on

18
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/sponsored/brief-history-solar-panels-180972006/

37
 New York City rooftop in 1884

Take a light step back to 1883 when New York inventor Charles Fritts created the first solar cell
by coating selenium with a thin layer of gold. Fritts reported that the selenium module produced a
current “that is continuous, constant, and of considerable force.” This cell achieved an energy
conversion rate of 1 to 2 percent. Most modern solar cells work at an efficiency of 15 to 20 percent.
So, Fritts created what was a low impact solar cell, but still, it was the beginning of photovoltaic
solar panel innovation in America. Named after Italian physicist, chemist and pioneer of electricity
and power, Alessandro Volta, photovoltaic is the more technical term for turning light energy into
electricity, and used interchangeably with the term photoelectric.

38
 Edward Weston's "Apparatus for Utilizing Solar Radiant Energy,"
patented September 4, 1888. (U.S. Patent 389,124)

Only a few years later in 1888, inventor Edward Weston received two patents for solar cells – U.S.
Patent 389,124 and U.S. Patent 389,425. For both patents, Weston proposed, “to transform radiant
energy derived from the sun into electrical energy, or through electrical energy into
mechanical energy.” Light energy is focused via a lens (f) onto the solar cell (a), “a thermopile (an
electronic device that converts thermal energy into electrical energy) composed of bars of
dissimilar metals.” The light heats up the solar cell and causes electrons to be released and current
to flow. In this instance, light creates heat, which creates electricity; this is the exact reverse of the
way an incandescent light bulb works, converting electricity to heat that then generates light.

That same year, a Russian scientist by the name of Aleksandr Stoletov created the first solar cell
based on the photoelectric effect, which is when light falls on a material and electrons are released.
This effect was first observed by a German physicist, Heinrich Hertz. In his research,
Hertz discovered that more power was created by ultraviolet light than visible light. Today, solar
cells use the photoelectric effect to convert sunlight into power.

In 1894, American inventor Melvin Severy received patents 527,377 for an "Apparatus for
mounting and operating thermopiles" and 527,379 for an "Apparatus for generating electricity by
solar heat." Both patents were essentially early solar cells based on the discovery of the
photoelectric effect. The first generated “electricity by the action of solar heat upon a thermo-pile”
and could produce a constant electric current during the daily and annual movements of the sun,
which alleviated anyone from having to move the thermopile according to the sun’s movements.
Severy’s second patent from 1889 was also meant for using the sun’s thermal energy to produce
electricity for heat, light and power. The “thermos piles,” or solar cells as we call them today, were
mounted on a standard to allow them to be controlled in the vertical direction as well as on a
turntable, which enabled them to move in a horizontal plane. “By the combination of these two
movements, the face of the pile can be maintained opposite the sun all times of the day and all
seasons of the year,” reads the patent.

9, 1894
Melvin
(U.S.L.Patent
Severy's
527,377)
"Apparatus for Mounting and Operating Thermopiles," patented October

39
Almost a decade later, American inventor Harry Reagan received patents for thermal batteries,
which are structures used to store and release thermal energy. The thermal battery was invented to
collect and store heat by having a large mass that can heat up and release energy. It does not store
electricity but “heat,” however, systems today use this technology to generate electricity
by conventional turbines. In 1897, Reagan was granted U.S. patent 588,177 for an “application of
solar heat to thermo batteries.” In the claims of the patent, Reagan said his invention included “a
novel construction of apparatus in which the sun’s rays are utilized for heating thermo-batteries,
the object being to concentrate the sun’s rays to a focus and have one set of junctions of a thermo-
battery at the focus of the rays, while suitable cooling devices are applied to the other junctions of
said thermo-battery.” His invention was a means to collecting, storing and distributing solar heat

40
as needed.

H.C. Reagan's "Application of Solar Heat to Thermo Batteries,"

patented August 17, 1897 (U.S. Patent 588,177)

41
In 1913, William Coblentz, of Washington, D.C., received patent 1,077,219 for a “thermal
generator,” which was a device that used light rays “to generate an electric current of such a
capacity to do useful work.” He also meant for the invention to have cheap and strong
construction. Although this patent was not for a solar panel, these thermal generators were
invented to either convert heat directly into electricity or to transform that energy into power for
heating and cooling.

W.W. Coblentz's "Thermal Generator,"

patented October 28, 1913 (U.S. Patent 1,077,219)

42
By the 1950s, Bell Laboratories realized that semiconducting materials such as silicon were more
efficient than selenium. They managed to create a solar cell that was 6 percent efficient.
Inventors Daryl Chapin, Calvin Fuller, and Gerald Pearson (inducted to the National Inventors
Hall of Fame in 2008) were the brains behind the silicon solar cell at Bell Labs. While it was
considered the first practical device for converting solar energy to electricity, it was still cost
prohibitive for most people. Silicon solar cells are expensive to produce, and when you combine
multiple cells to create a solar panel, it's even more expensive for the public to purchase.
University of Delaware is credited with creating one of the first solar buildings, “Solar One,” in
1973. The construction ran on a combination of solar thermal and solar photovoltaic power. The
building didn’t use solar panels; instead, solar was integrated into the rooftop.

D. M. Chapin et al's "Solar Energy Converting Apparatus,"

patented February 5, 1957 (U.S. Patent 2,780,765)

43
It was around this time in the 1970s that an energy crisis emerged in the United States. Congress
passed the Solar Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1974, and the federal
government was committed more than ever “to make solar viable and affordable and market it to
the public.” After the debut of “Solar One,” people saw solar energy as an option for their homes.
Growth slowed in the 1980s due to the drop in traditional energy prices. But in the next decades,
the federal government was more involved with solar energy research and development, creating
grants and tax incentives for those who used solar systems. According to Solar Energy Industries
Association, solar has had an average annual growth rate of 50 percent in the last 10 years in the
United States, largely due to the Solar Investment Tax Credit enacted in 2006. Installing solar is
also more affordable now due to installation costs dropping over 70 percent in the last decade.

That said, at least until recently, the means to find a viable and affordable energy solution is more
important than making solar cells aesthetically pleasing or beautiful. Traditional solar panels on
American rooftops aren’t exactly subtle or pleasing to the eye. They’ve been an eyesore for
neighbors at times, and surely a pain for homeowner’s associations to deal with, but the benefits
to the environment are substantial. So, where’s the balance? Today, companies are striving towards
better looking and advanced solar technology, such as building-applied photovoltaic (BAPV). This
type of discreet solar cell is integrated into existing roof tiles or ceramic and glass facades of
buildings.

Solus Engineering, Enpulz, Guardian Industries Corporation, SolarCity Corporation, United Solar
Systems, and Tesla (after their merger with SolarCity) have all been issued patents for solar cells
that are much more discreet than the traditional solar panel. All of the patents incorporate
photovoltaic systems, which transform light into electricity using semiconducting materials such
as silicon. Solar panels and solar technology has come a long way, so these patented inventions
are proof that the technology is still improving its efficiency and aesthetics.

The Hot Springs of Tiberias19

The New York Times, Nov 10,2020

Last month, a group of hikers in America’s beautiful Yellowstone National Park were
banned from the park for two years, sentenced to two years’ probation, and fined
19
Talmudology.com

44
between $500 and $1,200. Their crime? Cooking chickens in the park’s famous hot
springs. As reported in The New York Times, it is illegal to go off the boardwalk or
designated trails and to touch or throw objects into hot springs or other hydrothermal
features at the park. It’s also dangerous. “The water in the park’s hydrothermal systems
can exceed 400 degrees Fahrenheit and can cause severe or fatal burns,” said a park
spokeswoman. But had the hikers done this on a Saturday, at least they would not have
broken any laws that prohibit cooking on Shabbat. We learn this in our daf!

‫ א‬, ‫פ ס ח ים מ א‬

‫ָאַמר ַרב ִחְסָדּא‬: ‫ַהְמַבֵשּׁל ְבַּחֵמּי ְטֶב ְרָיא ְבַּשָׁבּת — ָפּטוּר‬. ‫ֶפַּסח ֶשִׁבְּשּׁלוֹ ְבַּחֵמּי ְטֶב ְרָיא — ַחָיּיב‬

Rav Chisda said: One who cooks food in the hot springs of Tiberias on Shabbat is exempt. One
violates the Shabbat prohibition of cooking only if he uses a fire. In the case of a Paschal lamb that
was cooked, i.e., boiled, in the hot springs of Tiberius, one is liable for boiling the offering [for it
may only be eaten roasted over a fire].

Rav Chisda’s ruling is based on the simple premise that the kind of cooking that is forbidden on
Shabbat is that which involves fire. If you cook by another means, like for example, the sun’s heat,
then there is no Sabbath violation. And according to the sages of the Talmud, the hot springs of
Tiberius (and Yellowstone too, I presume) are heated by the sun. Hence there is no prohibition
against cooking in hot springs on Shabbat. But before gently lowering your chicken into the waters,
check with a park ranger first.

HOW THE SUN HEATS THE HOT SPRINGS

How does the sun manage to heat up the waters of the hot springs on Tiberius? Here is Rashi’s
explanation:

‫א‬,‫רשי ד׳ה שלנו פסחים מב‬

‫בימות הגשמים חמה מהלכת בשיפולו של רקיע לפיכך כל העולם צונן ומעיינות חמין‬

…During the winter the sun is low in the sky. This is the reason that it gets cold, but the springs
are warm…

The idea is this: as the sun travels low in the sky during the winter it cannot provide warmth. But
it manages to heat up the springs because of its path at night, when it travels under the earth. This
is made explicit in a famous passage later in this tractate:

‫ב‬,‫פסחים צד‬

‫ַחְכֵמי ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל אוְֹמ ִרים ַבּיּוֹם ַחָמּה ְמַהֶלֶּכת ְלַמָטּה ִמן ָה ָרִקיַﬠ וַּבַלּ ְיָלה ְלַמְﬠָלה ִמן ָה ָרִקיַﬠ ְוַחְכֵמי אוּמּוֹת ָהעוָֹלם אוְֹמ ִרים‬
‫ַבּיּוֹם ַחָמּה ְמַהֶלֶּכת ְלַמָטּה ִמן ָהָרִקיַﬠ וַּבַלּ ְיָלה ְלַמָטּה ִמן ַהַקּ ְרַקע ָאַמר ַרִבּי ְו ִנ ְרִאין ִדְּב ֵריֶהן ִמְדָּב ֵרינוּ ֶשַׁבּיּוֹם ַמֲﬠָינוֹת צוֹ ְנ ִנין‬
‫וַּבַלּ ְיָלה רוְֹתִחין‬

45
WHY DO LAKES SEEM WARM AT NIGHT?

According to the great editor of the Mishnah Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, at night the water in lakes
feels warmer than the surrounding cool air. His explanation (which was not really his, but that of
the “sages of the nations of the world”) was that the sun was actually warming the water as it
passed underneath on its nightly path under the flat earth, much like your stove heats a pot of water
from the underneath.

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON?

The phenomena that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi described, in which a body of water feels warmer at
night (when compared with the surrounding cool night air) than it did during the day, is due to a
property we now call specific heat or heat capacity. Because the heat capacity of water is about
four times that of air, water takes longer to heat up but also longer to cool down than does the
surrounding air; as a result, when compared to the cooler night air, the water feels comparatively
warmer at night than it did during the day. This is also the reason that the weather in coastal areas
is generally milder than areas more inland; the ocean traps the sun’s heat and slowly releases it,
preventing large fluctuations in temperature. All this was not known to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi
(or anybody else back then) and he came up with another explanation entirely.

46
DON’T TOUCH THAT WATER!

The theory that the sun slips underneath the earth each night and warms up spring water has
halakhic ramifications to this day. Since spring water (and not just hot spring water) was thought
to be warm, it could not be used in the process of baking matzah for Passover. Its warmth would
speed up the process of leavening and turn the matztot into forbidden bread. And so we read in
tomorrow’s page of Talmud (Pesachim 42a)

‫ ִאָשּׁה ל ֹא ָתּלוּשׁ ֶאָלּא ְבַּמ ִים ֶשָׁלּנוּ‬:‫ָאַמר ַרב ְיהוָּדה‬

Rav Yehuda said: A woman may knead matza dough only with water that rested, i.e., water that
was left indoors overnight to cool.

If water is added to dough immediately after it was drawn from a well or spring, when it is still
lukewarm, the dough will leaven at a faster rate. The German Rabbi Jacob Moellin (1365–1427)
ruled that water used to make matzot must be drawn immediately after sunset, because after this
time the sun warms the water as it passes beneath the earth (Sefer Maharil 6b). This opinion was
codified in the Shulhan Arukh, the Code of Jewish Law written by Joseph Caro in the sixteenth
century.

‫שולחן ארוך אורח חיים‬455:1

‫אין לשין אלא במים שלנו בין שהם מי בורות ומעיינות בין שהם מי נהרות ושואבים אותם מבעוד יום )סמוך‬
‫לבין השמשות( )ד"ע והגהות מיימוני פ"ה( או בין השמשות ואין לשין בהן עד שיעבור הלילה כולה ויכולים‬
‫לשאוב יום אחד לימים הרבה ואם הזמן חם יניחם במרתף שהוא קר ואם הזמן קר יניחם באויר כי המרתף הוא‬
‫חם וצריך להשכים ולהכניסם לבית קודם שיזרח השמש ואפילו ביום המעונן‬

One may only knead dough with water that has “rested,” regardless of whether the water comes
from a well, a spring or a river. The water must be drawn during the day, and may not be used
until the entire night has passed…

WHAT HAPPENS TO JEWISH LAW WHEN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF

THE NATURAL WORLD CHANGES?

We now know that the sun does not travel under a flat earth at night, and the springs of Tiberius
are not heated by the sun as it does so. As the National Park Service helpfully notes,

…hot springs are heated by geothermal heat—heat from the Earth's interior. In volcanic areas,
water may come into contact with very hot rock heated by magma… In non-volcanic areas, the
temperature of rocks within the Earth also increases with depth—this temperature increase is
known as the Geothermal Gradient. If water percolates deeply enough into the crust, it comes into
contact with hot rocks and can circulate to the surface to form hot springs.

47
 Hanokh Ehrentreu, Sheyorei Haminhah, Haifa 1972, p 268.

If in fact hot springs are not heated by the sun but by volcanic heat, then, and by the Talmud’s own
logic, cooking in their waters on Shabbat should actually be forbidden, since the water was directly
or indirectly heated by fire. But that’s not how traditional Jewish law works. Once a rule is on the
books, it pretty much stays there, regardless of any change in the factual basis on which it may
have been constructed. With the later acceptance of the Copernican model the law about drawn
water remained unchanged.

For example, Rabbi Hanokh Ehrentreu (1854–1927), who served as the head of the rabbinic court
(Bet Din) in Munich, wrote that “today there is no one who can question [the truth of the
heliocentric model] for it is beyond any doubt.” Nevertheless, Rabbi Ehrentreu (whose grandson
and namesake was the head of the London rabbinic court until his retirement in 2007) wrote that
the laws about the water used to make matzot remained in effect, since “we do not know all the
reasons [for the law] and we must follow the rulings of all [who write on this question] whenever
possible.”

NOT THE SUN, BUT THE FIRES OF HELL

Although the talmudic suggestion that the hot springs of Tiberius are heated by the sun is not
correct, it should be pointed out that there is another talmudic theory, and this one comes a lot
closer to the geological truth. First some background. The villagers of Tiberius had once hooked
up an ingenious geothermal system by which cold water running through a pipe would be warmed
by the hot springs. This plumbing incurred rabbinic displeasure, as described in a Mishnah:

48
 ‫ב‬,‫שבת לח‬

‫ ִאם ְבַּשָׁבּת — ְכַּחִמּין‬:‫ ָאְמרוּ ָלֶהם ֲחָכִמים‬.‫ַמֲﬠֶשׂה ֶשָׁﬠשׂוּ ַא ְנֵשׁי ְטֶב ְרָיא ְוֵהִביאוּ ִסילוֹן ֶשׁל צוֵֹנן ְלתוֹ ַאָמּה ֶשׁל ַחִמּין‬
‫ וּמוָּתּ ִרין‬,‫ ַוֲאסוּ ִרין ִבּ ְרִחיָצה‬,‫שׁהוַּחמּוּ ְבּיוֹם טוֹב‬
ֶ ‫ ִאם ְבּיוֹם טוֹב — ְכַּחִמּין‬.‫ ַוֲאסוּ ִרין ִבּ ְרִחיָצה וִּבְשִׁתָיּהּ‬,‫ֶשׁהוַּחמּוּ ְבַּשָׁבּת‬
‫ִבְּשִׁתָיּה‬

The people of the city of Tiberius ran a cold-water pipe through a canal of hot water from the
Tiberius hot springs. [They thought that by doing so, they could heat the cold potable water on
Shabbat.] The Rabbis said to them: If the water passed through on Shabbat, its legal status is like
that of hot water that was heated on Shabbat, and the water is prohibited both for bathing and for
drinking. And if the water passed through on a Festival, then it is prohibited for bathing but
permitted for drinking. On Festivals, one is even permitted to boil water on actual fire for the
purposes of eating and drinking.

But why would such a geothermal system be forbidden as a form of cooking? We have already
established that talmudic cooking requires a fire, and that the water are heated by the sun! Not so,
explained Rabbi Yossi (on Shabbat 39a):

‫ְוָהִכי ָקָאְמ ִרי ֵליהּ ַרָבַּנן ְל ַרִבּי יוֵֹסי ָהא ַמֲﬠֶשׂה ְדַּא ְנֵשׁי ְטֶב ְרָיא ְדּתוְֹלדוֹת ַחָמּה הוּא ְוָאְס ִרי ְלהוּ ַרָבַּנן ֲאַמר ְלהוּ ַההוּא‬
‫תּוְֹלדוֹת אוּר הוּא ְדָּחְלִפי ַאִפּיְתָחא ְדֵגיִהָנּם‬

Rabbi Yosei said to them: That is not so. That incident involved derivatives of fire, as the hot
springs of Tiberius are hot because they pass over the entrance to Hell. They are heated by
hellfire, which is a bona fide underground fire. That is not the case with derivatives of the sun,
which are not heated by fire at all.

According to Rabbi Yossi the hot springs of Tiberius are an exception to the general rule (that all
hot springs are heated by the sun passing underneath them) because they are located “over the
entrance to Hell.” As a result, on Shabbat these waters may not used to heat water or to cook
chicken. And of course Rabbi Yossi was correct in all but one detail.

As any geologist today knows full well, all hot springs, and not just those that bubble up in
Tiberius, are heated by fires of Hell. We just call those hellish fires by a different name. Volcanos.

49