It's Electricity, boogie boogie boogie boogie
(ג) לֹא־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת׃ (פ)
(3) You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the sabbath day.
יכול עשאן כולן בהעלם אחד אינו חייב אלא אחת ת"ל (שמות לד, כא) בחריש ובקציר תשבות ועדיין אני אומר על חרישה ועל הקצירה חייב שתים ועל כולן אינו חייב אלא אחת ת"ל לא תבערו אש הבערה בכלל היתה ולמה יצאת להקיש אליה ולומר לך מה הבערה שהיא אב מלאכה וחייבין עליה בפני עצמה אף כל שהוא אב מלאכה חייבין עליה בפני עצמה

Therefore, the verse states: “You shall not kindle fire in all your dwellings on the day of Shabbat” (Exodus 35:3). This is derived in the following manner: Kindling was included in the general prohibition prohibiting all labors, and why was it singled out and prohibited explicitly? It was singled out in order to equate the other labors to it and to tell you: Just as kindling is a primary category of prohibited labor, and one is liable for performing it on its own, so too, with regard to every primary category of prohibited labor, one is liable for performing it on its own.

שמע מינה מדרבי עקיבא תלת שמע מינה אין ביעור חמץ אלא שריפה ושמע מינה הבערה לחלק יצאת ושמע מינה לא אמרינן הואיל והותרה הבערה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך:
Learn from the statement of Rabbi Akiva three halakhot. Learn from it that the removal of leavened bread can be performed only by means of burning. Rabbi Akiva bases his opinion on the fact that it is prohibited to kindle a fire on the Festival.
And second, learn from it that the prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat was specifically singled out in the Torah to divide the various primary categories of labor and to establish liability for performance of each of them. The dissenting opinion is that kindling is singled out to teach that there is no capital punishment for performing that primary category of labor.
And third, learn from it that we do not say: Since it is permitted to kindle a fire for the purpose of preparing food, it is also permitted to light a fire not for the purpose of preparing food, e.g., to burn leaven.
עולא איקלע לבי רב יהודה קם שמעיה זקף לה לשרגא איתיביה רב יהודה לעולא הנותן שמן בנר חייב משום מבעיר והמסתפק ממנו חייב משום מכבה א"ל לאו אדעתאי:
The Gemara relates that Ulla once happened to come to the house of Rav Yehuda on a Festival. Ulla’s servant stood and tilted the oil lamp [sheragga], diverting most of the oil to one side, with the intention of preventing the oil from reaching the wick so that the light would be extinguished more quickly. Rav Yehuda raised an objection to Ulla from the following baraita, in which it is taught: One who adds oil to a lamp on Shabbat is liable for performing the prohibited labor of kindling on Shabbat, and one who supplies himself with oil from a lit lamp on Shabbat is liable for performing the prohibited labor of extinguishing, as he causes the light to be extinguished more quickly. This indicates that any action, even an indirect one, that causes a lamp be extinguished earlier than it would have otherwise is considered extinguishing. Here too, by tilting the lamp, the servant extinguished a light on the Festival, which is prohibited. Ulla said to him: You are indeed correct; the act was performed by my servant without my knowledge.
רבא אמר ליקדם איכא בינייהו והתניא היו לפניו שתי נרות דולקות ארוכות ונתכוין לכבות את זו וכיבה את זו להדליק את זו והדליק את זו פטור להדליק ולכבות וכיבה והדליק בנשימה אחת חייב פשיטא מהו דתימא לא איתעבד מחשבתיה דהא להדליק מעיקרא בעי ולבסוף לכבות וכי עבד מעשה כיבה ובסוף הדליק הוא ואימא פטור קא משמע לן נהי דאקדומי נמי לא מקדים אחורי נמי לא מאחר תנו רבנן החותה גחלים בשבת חייב חטאת רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק חייב שתים מפני שהוא מכבה את העליונות ומבעיר את התחתונות

Raba said, They differ in the matter of sequence. As it has been taught: If there were before a person [on the Sabbath] two burning [or extinguished] candles and he intended to extinguish the one but extinguished the other, or to kindle the one but kindled the other, he is exempt if he intended first to kindle the one and then to extinguish the other, and he first extinguished and then kindled, if with one breath he is liable, if with two breaths he is exempt. But is this not obvious? — I might have thought that since his design was not realized, seeing that he wanted first to kindle and then to extinguish, but in his act [we might regard it as if] the extinguishing was done first and then the kindling, he should accordingly be exempt; therefore we are told [that this is not so]; for although [the kindling] did not precede [the extinguishing], neither did it follow.7 Our Rabbis taught: If one removed coals [from a burning pile] on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering; R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok: He is liable to two [offerings], because he extinguished the upper coals and kindled the lower ones

וכל המקלקלין פטורין: תני ר' אבהו קמיה דר' יוחנן כל המקלקלין פטורין חוץ מחובל ומבעיר א"ל פוק תני לברא חובל ומבעיר אינה משנה ואם ת"ל משנה חובל בצריך לכלבו מבעיר בצריך לאפרו
We learned in the mishna: And anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt. Rabbi Abbahu taught this baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: Anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt, except for one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go teach that outside. This baraita is not fit for discussion in the study hall. The opinion that deems one liable for inflicting a wound or kindling a fire on Shabbat is not an accepted teaching and should be ignored. And if you want to say that it is a legitimate teaching, one who inflicts a wound would only be liable in a case where he needed the blood to give to his dog, and one who kindles a fire would only be liable in a case where he needs its ashes.
א"ל והאמר רב חיננא סבא אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן תנור שהסיקו וגרפו וצלה בו את הפסח אין זה צלי אש שנאמר (שמות יב, ח) צלי אש (שמות יב, ח) צלי אש שתי פעמי'
Rav Ḥinnana said to him: But didn’t Rav Ḥinnana the Elder say that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If there is an oven that one fired and swept so that the heat remains but there is no longer any fire in the oven, and one then roasted the Paschal lamb in it, this is not a fulfillment of the Torah’s command that the Paschal lamb must be roasted in fire, as it is stated in the Torah: “And they shall eat the meat on that night, roasted in fire, and matzot; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water, but roasted in fire; its head with its legs and with its inner parts” (Exodus 12:8–9), and since it says the phrase: Roasted in fire, two times, the verse emphasizes that the Paschal lamb must literally be roasted on the fire?
והמסתפק ממנו חייב משום מכבה. אינו ר"ל מפני שממהר כבוי דלא הוי אלא גרם כבוי וגרם כבוי ביום טוב שרי אע"פ שממהר כבויה ובשבת נמי אינו חייב אלא היינו טעמא הואיל דבאותה שעה שהוא מסתפק ממנה מכבה קצת ומכסה אורו דלא יכול לאנהורי כולי האי כי איכא שמן מועט בנר ולכך נראה ככבוי ומכאן יש להתיר קנדיל"א של שעוה גדולה לחתוך למטה ממנה כיון דבשעה שחותך אותה אינו מכחיש מאור שלה כלל אע"ג שהוא גורם לגרום כבויה שרי ודוקא לחתוך אותה באור אבל בסכין אסור אליבא דכולי עלמא דאמר לקמן במתני' (דף לב.) חותכה באור בפי שתי נרות:

He is not obligated (in the case of moving around the oil near the candle) because of the transgression of extinguishing, because he didn't really extinguish; rather, it was "Gram extinguishing," and gram extinguishing is allowed on the holidays, even though it hurried up it's extinguishing....and this is why it is ok to cut off the bottom of a candle (not with a knife and not to specific size, because of the prohibition of slicing/sizing), because in the hour that you are doing so you are not affecting the light at all, even though it will lead to the flame going out faster

(ו) הַמַּתִּיךְ אֶחָד מִמִּינֵי מַתָּכוֹת כָּל שֶׁהוּא אוֹ הַמְחַמֵּם אֶת הַמַּתָּכוֹת עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה גַּחֶלֶת הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹלֶדֶת מְבַשֵּׁל. וְכֵן הַמְמַסֵּס אֶת הַדּוֹנַג אוֹ אֶת הַחֵלֶב אוֹ אֶת הַזֶּפֶת וְהַכֹּפֶר וְהַגָּפְרִית וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹלֶדֶת מְבַשֵּׁל וְחַיָּב. וְכֵן הַמְבַשֵּׁל כְּלֵי אֲדָמָה עַד שֶׁיֵּעָשׂוּ חֶרֶס חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם מְבַשֵּׁל. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר בֵּין שֶׁרִפָּה גּוּף קָשֶׁה בָּאֵשׁ אוֹ שֶׁהִקְשָׁה גּוּף רַךְ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם מְבַשֵּׁל:

A person who melts even the slightest amount of metal or who heats a piece of metal until [it glows like] a coal24 performs a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of cooking.25 Similarly, a person who melts wax, tallow, tar, brown tar, or pitch, and the like performs a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of cooking and is liable.

Similarly, a person who heats an earthenware utensil until it becomes hard clay is liable for cooking. The general principle is: Whether one softens a firm entity with fire or hardens a soft entity, one is liable for cooking.

(א) הַמַּבְעִיר כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לָאֵפֶר. אֲבָל אִם הִבְעִיר דֶּרֶךְ הַשְׁחָתָה פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְקַלְקֵל. וְהַמַּבְעִיר גְּדִישׁוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ הַשּׂוֹרֵף דִּירָתוֹ חַיָּב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁחִית. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכַּוָּנָתוֹ לְהִנָּקֵם מִשּׂוֹנְאוֹ וַהֲרֵי נִתְקָרְרָה דַּעְתּוֹ וְשָׁכְכָה חֲמָתוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה כְּקוֹרֵעַ עַל מֵתוֹ אוֹ בַּחֲמָתוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב וּבְחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁעַת מְרִיבָה שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ מְתַקְּנִים הֵן אֵצֶל יִצְרָן הָרַע. וְכֵן הַמַּדְלִיק אֶת הַנֵּר אוֹ אֶת הָעֵצִים בֵּין לְהִתְחַמֵּם בֵּין לְהָאִיר הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. הַמְחַמֵּם אֶת הַבַּרְזֶל כְּדֵי לְצָרְפוֹ בְּמַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹלֶדֶת מַבְעִיר וְחַיָּב:

A person who kindles even the smallest fire is liable, provided he needs the ash that it creates. However, should a person kindle a fire with a destructive intent, he is not liable, for he is causing ruin.

Nevertheless, a person who sets fire to a heap of produce or a dwelling belonging to a colleague is liable, because his intent is to take revenge on his enemies. [Through this act,] he calms his feelings and vents his rage. He is comparable to a person who rends his garments over a deceased person or in rage [on the Sabbath],or a person who injures a colleague in an argument.These individuals are all considered to be performing a constructive activity, because of their evil inclinations.

Similarly, a person who lights a candle or wood, whether to generate warmth or light, is liable.

A person who heats iron in order to strengthen it by submerging it in water is liable for [performing] a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of kindling. Nevertheless, a person who sets fire to a heap of produce or a dwelling belonging to a colleague is liable, because his intent is to take revenge on his enemies. [Through this act,] he calms his feelings and vents his rage. He is comparable to a person who rends his garments over a deceased person or in rage [on the Sabbath],or a person who injures a colleague in an argument. These individuals are all considered to be performing a constructive activity, because of their evil inclinations.