Siman 265

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1: "One may not place a perforated vessel full of oil over the opening of a lamp so that it drips into it, as a decree lest one take from it and become liable for extinguishing. But if he attached it to it with lime or clay—it is permitted, for since it is a single vessel, he will distance himself from it due to the prohibition of Shabbat." Thus far his words. And this is a Mishnah in Shabbat (29b): "A person may not pierce an eggshell and fill it with oil and place it over the opening of a lamp so that it drips, even if it is made of earthenware"—for it is repulsive, nevertheless we fear lest he take from it, because since it is in a vessel of its own and not inside the lamp, it does not appear to people as a prohibited matter. And as for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, not mentioning 'even if it is made of earthenware,' since he wrote 'vessel' without qualification—everything is included, and only in the Mishnah which mentioned the eggshell, where I would have said that one of earthenware is permitted—it comes to teach us that this too is forbidden. And they also said there in the Gemara that we do not require the attachment of a craftsman, but even if the homeowner attached it, which is a weak attachment—nevertheless it is permitted, for since they are in a single vessel—he will distance himself from it.

There is much to wonder about our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote: 'that when he makes use of it, he becomes liable on account of extinguishing,' for what connection is there to extinguishing, given that the oil is in a vessel unto itself? And in truth, the Rambam in chapter 5, law 12, and the Tur did not mention that he would be liable on account of extinguishing, but rather it is a mere prohibition, for since it was set aside for the lamp—it is forbidden to make use of it, but there is no liability for extinguishing. And the Tosafot have already written in Beitza (22a) that this matter of one who makes use of the oil from the lamp being liable on account of extinguishing—this is because he diminishes the light, see there, and this is not applicable when the oil is unto itself. However, Rashi in the Mishnah also wrote that he would be liable on account of extinguishing, and it requires further study. (And besides this, the wording of Rashi there requires further study, for he wrote: "And since he set it aside for the lamp, he is liable on account of extinguishing," thus far his words; he began with muktzeh and concluded with extinguishing. And I found the Pnei Yehoshua who addressed this, see there, who wrote that the reasoning of the Rambam is muktzeh.)

And in the Yerushalmi it says an entirely different reason—due to mave'ir. And this is because even though it is permitted to light the lamp on Erev Shabbat so that it remains burning throughout the entire Shabbat—this is when they are all together. But here, where the oil is by itself and falls drop by drop into the lamp—there is no connection between this drop and the other, and it turns out that the drop falling on Shabbat is as if he did it with his hands, or because we decree lest he pour from the tube into the lamp on Shabbat, and he will be liable due to mave'ir; see there. And from the Rambam and the Tur it is implied that the prohibition is due to muktzeh, but due to mechabeh is difficult. (And the Lechem Mishneh there questioned the Rambam why he did not write due to mechabeh; see there, and his question is difficult.)

And I found one who wrote that here there can be actual extinguishing, for the concern is not lest he take a small amount from the tube, but rather lest he take the entire tube from above it while the drops are descending, and then it will be extinguished completely. (Yam Shel Shlomo, Beitzah, Chapter 2, Siman 28). However, the Rosh, Chapter 2 of Beitzah (Siman 17), brought a proof from this Mishnah against the Tosafot, that the reason one who takes from it is liable for extinguishing is because he diminishes the light, for here the light is not diminished, and nevertheless he is liable for extinguishing. Rather, the reason is because of causing extinguishing, for when he takes from it, he causes it to be extinguished sooner, and in such a case of causing extinguishing, everyone agrees that it is like extinguishing; see there. (And the Pnei Yehoshua there wrote that the intent of Rashi is not actual extinguishing, but rather something like extinguishing; see there. And he did not mention the words of the Rosh that we brought. And the HaGaon Rav Zalman in his Shulchan Aruch, section 1, appears to have intended the words of the Yam Shel Shlomo; see there carefully and study it.) (And this is only a labor that is not needed for its own sake, as is understood; and see Magen Avraham, subsection 1.)

We also learned there: A person may not fill a bowl with oil and place it next to the lamp and place the head of the wick inside it so that it will draw [oil], a decree lest he take from it. And behold, here the prohibition could well be due to extinguishing, since the head of the wick is inside the oil; however, from the Rambam it is clear that even in this it is only due to muktzeh, see there, for he equated this law to the previous one. And it must be said that since the oil is in its own vessel, it is not called "extinguishing" when he takes from it, and it is similarly clear from the Tur that they have one law, see there. And one should not ask: since the head of the wick is inside the oil, how could he take [from it]? For it can be said that since the oil is in its own vessel, it does not appear to people as a prohibition. And in the Gemara it implies that, on the contrary, this is lighter to people than the previous one, because there is the separation of a vessel, see there. And it is stated in the Yerushalmi that the same applies to one who lights a wick in two vessels, the head of the wick in one vessel and its end in another vessel and he lit both—it is also forbidden to do so due to the concern lest he take [from it], see there. And the reason is that whenever the wick and the oil are not in only one vessel, it is not stringent to people, and they will err to say that there is no prohibition to take from the oil.

It is written in the Hagahot Ashri: (ibid.) that if there are several pieces of chelev in a burning lamp and one took one piece—he is not liable for extinguishing; see there. And it appears that even according to the opinion of the Rosh that we brought, that regarding a tube one is liable for causing extinguishing—here he would concede, for there all the oil is connected to one another and they are all like a single piece, which is not the case with pieces of chelev, where each piece is independent and has no connection to the others, and the concept of causing extinguishing does not apply to this. And even though on Shabbat it is prohibited regardless due to muktzeh, nevertheless there is a practical difference regarding Yom Tov, for it is permitted to move the chelev for lighting but extinguishing is prohibited, and therefore on Yom Tov it is permitted to take one piece from the vessel.

One may not place a vessel under a lamp on Shabbat to receive the dripping oil, because he nullifies the vessel from its preparation, meaning that prior to this the vessel was fit for carrying, and now on Shabbat he makes it muktzeh and forbids it for carrying. Rashi explained in Shabbat (154b) that it is like destroying, see there, meaning since he cannot remove it from its place it is like destroying the structure of the vessel. And the Tosafot (43a) wrote that it is like building, see there. Meaning since he cannot move it from its place—it is like a structure fixed to the ground. However, while it is still day—it is permitted to place it, but the dripping oil is forbidden to be used on Shabbat, for the oil was set aside for its mitzvah for the entire Shabbat, and the vessel is also forbidden for carrying, because it became a base for the oil. But if oil did not fall into it—it is permitted for carrying, and it is not forbidden because of the thought he had that oil would fall into it and it would be a base for a forbidden thing, for a mere thought is nothing. (Magen Avraham, subsection 3) And even though he set aside the vessel in his mind—behold, he only set it aside for the sake of the oil, and it is as if he explicitly stipulated that he only sets it aside if the oil falls into it.

There are those who place a vessel under a candle of wax or of tallow on Shabbat, so that if the candle falls—it will not fall on the table or on the ground and cause a fire, but rather it will fall into the vessel. This does not constitute nullifying a vessel from its prepared state, for he is able to shake the candle out of the vessel by means of tilting from the side; however, oil he would not shake out such that the oil would fall on the ground, for if so he would lose the oil, but the candle is not lost by this. Therefore, the vessel does not become a base for a prohibited object, even according to the one who holds in siman 309 that by placing it, it becomes a base for a prohibited object, even if his intention was not for the entire Shabbat—this is when it was upon it during bein hashemashot, for we say: "Since it was set aside during bein hashemashot, it is set aside for the entire day," but when not during bein hashemashot, all agree that it is not called a base. (Magen Avraham, subsection 2) Furthermore, this is not a matter of "placing" at all, for it is only called "placing" when he specifically wants the muktzeh to be inside the vessel, but here, on the contrary, he has no desire at all for the candle to fall into the vessel, and only if it falls does he place the vessel so that it does not fall on the table or on the ground, and this is not a matter of "placing." (Derisha) But regarding dripping oil—it must necessarily drip and fall into the vessel. (See Tosafot Yom Tov at the end of Kirah, who wrote that from Rashi it is implied that even while it is still day one may not initially place a vessel under the oil, for we fear that he will move the vessel afterwards as well, and this is against the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch who permitted it initially, and it is a new decree. And also the Tosafot wrote on page 42b, starting with the words "And if they placed it," that it is permitted even initially, and from Rashi there is no proof, for he is commenting on the language of the Mishnah, see there and examine carefully.)

And even with an oil lamp, where there is a prohibition to place a vessel due to the reason of nullifying a vessel's readiness as has been explained, however, causing the nullification of a vessel's readiness is permitted. For example, if one placed a vessel under the table while it was still day, and after the meal he removed the table from its place, and thereby caused the lamp hanging above to be over the vessel so that the oil falls into the vessel, and it turns out that on Shabbat he caused the nullification of a vessel's readiness by removing the table—nevertheless, it is permitted. And even if causing an extinguishing like this is prohibited as has been explained, nevertheless, causing the nullification of a vessel's readiness is permitted (Magen Avraham, end of subsection 2), since the prohibition is only rabbinic. And sometimes there are cases where even on Shabbat it is permitted to place a vessel under the oil, such as when there is a permitted item in the vessel that has some importance, and also it is impossible to shake it out of the vessel, for even if the oil drips into it—it is permitted to move the vessel, according to the law of a base for a prohibited item and a permitted item, which will be explained at the end of siman 310, that there is no muktzeh in this and it is permitted to be moved, and it does not constitute nullifying a vessel's readiness. (ibid.) But when it is possible to shake the permitted item out of the vessel—it is prohibited, as is written there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3: That it is forbidden to touch a burning lamp when it is hanging, even though he does not move it and there is no issue of muktzeh with mere touching—nevertheless it is forbidden, lest it sway slightly from his touch and it tilt. Thus far his words. It is clear from his words that that which we hold that muktzeh is permitted with mere touching, as written in siman 310—this means that even if it sways due to the touch, we have no concern with it, since he wrote: "lest it sway and it tilt"—implying explicitly that it is only the concern lest the oil tilt, which is like kindling, but because of the swaying we have no concern with it. And it is impossible to say so, for he himself wrote in siman 308, section 3, that swaying is forbidden; see there. Therefore, it appears to me that here too his intention is so, and that which he concluded: "and it tilt," is because without this we would not have to concern ourselves lest it sway. And it is not similar to an egg in siman 513, for an egg is round and will certainly sway. However, from the side of the concern lest it tilt, which is a Torah prohibition—we concern ourselves even with a hanging lamp, and therefore when it is not burning—we do not concern ourselves, but if it will certainly sway—it is forbidden just as with an egg. And also our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in siman 310, section 6, who wrote: "provided that he does not touch it"—his intention is by way of moving, which is swaying, just as our teacher, the Rema, explained his words at the beginning of siman 513 regarding that which the author wrote: "an egg... it is forbidden to touch it," he wrote on this that this means to move it, see there, and likewise we shall explain there as well. And there is one who wrote that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, holds that it is forbidden even with mere touching for the sake of a forbidden matter, and they also raised a difficulty against our teacher, the Rema, that he contradicts himself, but in my humble opinion there is no contradiction or dispute here. (See Magen Avraham subsection 4 and siman 310 subsection 3 and siman 513 subsection 2, and in the Taz here and there, and that which appears to my humble opinion I have written, and examine it closely) (And that which he wrote in subsection 5 is simple)

But one may place a vessel under the lamp to receive sparks, and there is no "nullifying a vessel from its readiness" in this, because they have no substance, and they quickly extinguish and become as if they never were, and it will be permitted to move the vessel as before. And specifically sparks, but to place coals into it that fall from the lamp—it is forbidden, for they have substance and it will not be possible to move the vessel. And even though he can shake them out—nevertheless it is forbidden, for the shaking out is after they extinguish and this requires some time, and during this time he is "nullifying a vessel from its readiness." Therefore, it is not similar to a wax candle which we permitted for this reason in section 8, for there he can shake it out immediately. But burning coals, when he shakes them out—they will certainly be extinguished somewhat. (Magen Avraham subsection 6, for thus wrote the Tosafot 43a, end of the heading "while they are," see there)

One may not place a vessel with water under a lamp so that the sparks fall into it, even on Erev Shabbat. And it is not necessary to state that it is forbidden on Shabbat, for even though causing extinction is permitted on Shabbat in a case of loss, as I wrote in siman 334—that it is permitted to place vessels with water in front of a fire so that the vessels will burst and the water will extinguish the fire, and similarly a garment that caught fire, it is permitted to place water on it from the other side, and if it is extinguished, it is extinguished, because it is causing extinction. However, here it is not called causing extinction but rather bringing extinction near, since there is no interruption between the fire and the water except for the air, and the water is directly under the sparks, whereas there, there is an interruption. Furthermore, there is a concern that perhaps he will lift the vessel at the time the sparks fall (Tosafot at the end of Kirah), and therefore it is forbidden even on Erev Shabbat. And it is not similar to all the labors that are permitted on Erev Shabbat, for here we decree on account of Shabbat, because it does not appear to people as such a great prohibition when he places a vessel under the sparks, and therefore they were required to be stringent in this. (ibid.)

Nevertheless, it is permitted to place water under the oil in a glass vessel in which one kindles, and he places the water on Erev Shabbat and afterwards places the oil, and he does so in order to raise the oil; for since he does not intend for extinguishing but rather to raise the oil—it is not relevant to decree lest he do so on Shabbat, for on Shabbat raising the oil is not relevant, as he does not kindle on Shabbat. Our teacher, the Rema, in section 4 wrote regarding this: "And some say even if he intends for extinguishing—it is permitted, since the water is not visible but rather under the oil—it is only a gram kibui, and such is the custom." Thus far his words. That is to say, that here a decree on account of Shabbat is not relevant even if it were a reality that he would do so on Shabbat, for this is literally gram kibui as in siman 334, since there is a separation between the water and the light. And if so, what relevance is there to decree on Erev Shabbat on account of Shabbat, for on Shabbat itself there is no Torah prohibition here. Furthermore, it is impossible to do this on Shabbat as I have written. And even though a Torah prohibition is also absent in the previous law, for the extinguishing is a melacha she'eina tzericha legufa—nevertheless the name of a melacha is upon it. Furthermore, according to the Rambam one is liable for a melacha she'eina tzericha legufa, as I have written in siman 242, but here there is no name of a melacha upon it at all, but rather a gram melacha. (And his words are clear, and the Tosafot there who wrote the reason is because he does not intend for extinguishing—they spoke the truth, but even when intending for extinguishing there is no prohibition here on Erev Shabbat. And the difficulty of the Magen Avraham, subsection 10, from the Semag and the Semak is not difficult at all, for even the Tosafot wrote so because the truth is so. And also to place water on Erev Shabbat inside the lamp in which a candle of tallow or wax stands—there is no prohibition here, for he will not do so on Shabbat, and only with another vessel do we decree lest he do so on Shabbat, for it does not appear as a prohibition to people in that case, and also the conclusion of the Magen Avraham appears to be so, see there, and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 10, that such was the custom in his days, and previously he wondered about this, and afterwards he wrote the permission that we explained, see there. And what the Magen Avraham wrote that the Rema omitted this—this is not an omission, for it is understood automatically, and furthermore if he had forbidden it—he should have explained it, since the custom was to do so as the Eliyah Rabbah wrote, but certainly it is because a prohibition is not relevant to this on Erev Shabbat, and delve into this.)