Siman 275

It is forbidden to use the light of an oil lamp for something that requires much scrutiny, such as searching his garments for lice or checking tzitzit, or to distinguish between vessels that resemble one another and require much scrutiny to differentiate them and anything similar to this, and likewise to read a book by the light of the lamp. And they forbade it because of the concern that perhaps through the scrutiny he will forget that today is Shabbat, and he will tilt the lamp to bring the oil to the wick so that it will burn well, and he will be found to be kindling on Shabbat. (Rashi 11a, s.v. "v'lo") And even if he does not read in the book with his mouth, but rather looks into it and studies in thought—it is also forbidden, for ultimately he is occupied with his scrutiny and will come to tilt, and see in section 15.

And behold, there is no doubt that the concern "lest he tilt it" only applies in a place where there is reason to fear that the light will diminish from how it was when lit, and he will fix it by tilting it so that its light will be as before, such as in their lighting, where they placed oil in a vessel and placed a wick into it, and the edge of the wick rested on the side of the vessel. Consequently, when the oil diminishes, the light is reduced, and he will tilt it to bring the oil to the mouth of the wick, to fix the light so that it burns well, for so explained Rashi (ibid.) and the Ran and the Bartenura, see there, and also the wording of the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah there, "to fix the light," see there. But in a place where the light remains in one state from its beginning until its end, such as with us where we light gas in lamps, where the light is in the middle of the vessel above, for the wick is wide and inserted in the middle of the candlestick and glass is upon it, and its light is equal from its beginning until its end until the naphtha is consumed, and then tilting will not avail—meaning, that he should pull the wick out a bit more by way of the wheel at its side—for then it must necessarily be extinguished. And as long as the naphtha is not consumed, its light is equal as at the time it was lit—it is possible to say that "lest he tilt" does not apply to this, and with this one may find merit for the many of Israel who study before our candlesticks, and we have already wondered about this, from where is the basis to permit it, and according to what we have explained it works out well. (And so I saw in the book Mishnah Berurah, who wrote in the name of the Misgeret HaShulchan that he heard from several great ones this permission from their own reasoning, see there, and they did not bring the words of Rashi and the Rambam and the Ran and the Bartenura, from whom this is explicitly proven, and examine this.)

It is stated in the Gemara (12b): "And one may not read by the light of the lamp. Rava said: Even if it is two stories high, and even two ox-goads, and even ten houses one on top of the other." Rashi explained: 'And even though there is no concern of tilting—the sages did not differentiate' see there. And afterwards it says that only an individual is forbidden to read, but two are permitted, for if one comes to tilt, his fellow will remind him. And so too an important person who is not accustomed to tilting the lamp even on a weekday because of his importance—he is permitted to study on Shabbat by the light of the lamp, for there is no concern lest he tilt, since even on a weekday it is not his way to tilt, see there. And so too we say there that with naphtha it is permitted, for he will not come to tilt, because it smells foul and he will not come to tilt, see there in the explanation of Rashi. (And it is not so according to the explanation of the Rambam which will be explained in section 16)

And there is a question regarding this: since we have said that even when it is two stories high, where there is no concern for tilting—the sages did not distinguish and they forbade it in every case—if so, why did they permit it with two people, or with an important person, or with that which has a foul odor? Let us say that the sages did not distinguish. And there is one who answered that regarding a distinction that pertains to the lamp—the sages did not distinguish, but regarding a distinction that pertains to the person—they did not decree regarding this person on account of another person, and therefore they did not decree regarding two people on account of one, or an important person on account of one who is not important. (Taz, subsection 1) But this answer is not settled regarding why they did not decree concerning naphtha on account of oil, according to the explanation of Rashi in the sugya, see there. However, in truth, one of our teachers, the Rishonim, already addressed this (the Ran in chapter 23) and wrote that this statement of Rabbah—it is that they applied their measures equally within one type, but to be stringent with another type on account of that type—even Rabbah admits that we are not stringent, for behold we say that if he is an important person it is permitted, and we do not decree on account of one who is not important. And regarding oil as well, they distinguished between oil and naphtha, and they did not decree one because of the other. Thus far his words, and this is a clear answer. (And in the Yerushalmi, he compares one to the other.)

And this is the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1, who wrote: "One may not pick lice and one may not read by the light of a lamp... and even if it is ten stories high such that he cannot reach it, for the sages did not make distinctions in the matter. And for this reason, it should be forbidden even if it is in a glass lantern, or fixed in a hole in the wall." Thus far his words. And there is one who wrote that if it is locked with a key—it is permitted, and so did the Maharoash and the Maharam and their students, and there is one who forbids. (Magen Avraham, subsection 2) And the opinion of the one who permits is puzzling, for since the rabbis did not make distinctions—if so, it is forbidden in all manners, and what does it matter to me if he cannot tilt it because of its height or because it is locked. And there is no doubt in the matter, that according to what has been explained—it is forbidden in all manners. (And there are those who made distinctions and it is not clear.)

And if you should ask, if so, how did the great authorities permit it by locking with a key, it seems to my humble opinion clear that they did not interpret according to the commentary of Rashi that the reason for the prohibition at a great height is because the sages did not distinguish, but rather for the reason that even at a height we fear lest he ascend and tilt. And this matter is explicit in the Rambam, chapter 5, law 14, who wrote: "One may not pick lice... and even if there are ten houses one on top of the other and the lamp is in the uppermost one—he may not read nor pick lice by its light in the lowermost one, lest he forget and tilt." Thus far his words. Behold, he explained explicitly that the reason is not because of "the sages did not distinguish," but rather that even at a height there is a concern of tilting. And this is the reason of the great authorities who permitted it by locking with a key, since in such a case tilting is impossible, and I wonder at the commentators who did not notice the words of the Rambam that we brought. (See the Bach who labored over the words of the Rambam and interpreted them with a different intention, because of his words in chapter 22 regarding a mirror fixed to the wall which he prohibits, see there. And I wonder, for it is explicit in Rashi 149a in the heading "of metal"—that it itself shaves, see there. Rather, Rabbi Meir holds that until he shaves he will remember, and the sages do not hold this reasoning, and it is exactly like here. And this is not relevant to a place where it is not in his power to tilt, such as when it is locked, and if you should fear lest he bring the key—certainly there is no concern in this, for in such a case it is simple that he will remember, since for this reason they locked it. But with a lantern or in a hole where it is in his power to tilt—he will not remember, and if indeed there it is not in his power to tilt—it is permitted, and this is a great foundation in this matter, and delve into it.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: that likewise with a wax candle—it is forbidden. And the reason is not because of "we do not distinguish," for it has already been explained that we do not decree concerning one species on account of another species; rather, the matter is as follows: there is a dispute whether tilting applies to a wax candle as it does to oil, or not. And there is one who permits, but our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, decided in favor of prohibition, and this is his wording: "And it seems simple to me to prohibit, for it is relevant to it that he might trim and cut the head of the wick." Thus far his words. For through this its light will increase and it would be "kindling," so it appeared in my humble opinion. And so we say in Beitza (32b): "One may trim the wick on Yom Tov; what is 'trimming'? To remove the darkness," meaning to remove the darkness so that it will shine more, and it would be "kindling." And that which later in siman 514 they explained that this is "extinguishing"—certainly this is also true, for the wick that he trims is extinguished, and regarding Yom Tov there is no prohibition in kindling, only in extinguishing, and therefore we deal there with the matter of extinguishing. But on Shabbat, where kindling is forbidden—it is obvious that there is also kindling in this.

Therefore, I wondered greatly at those who disagree with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch (the Taz, subsection 2, and the Magen Avraham, subsection 3, and the Eliyah Rabbah) wrote the reason that since the prohibition is due to extinguishing—there is no Torah prohibition in this, as it is a labor not needed for its own sake, for a Torah prohibition of extinguishing is only extinguishing to produce charcoal, as we explained in siman 242, and regarding a rabbinic prohibition we do not decree. And it is very puzzling, for there is certainly also kindling here, unless we say that he holds that the light is not increased at all but rather the wick darkens it, and when they remove it the previous light shines brightly, but not that the light was increased. (And see the Taz in siman 278). And it is simple that a tallow candle is similar to a wax candle, and on the contrary, in a candle of tallow there is more reason for permission, for it is repulsive, and when they trim its light with their hands there remains on the fingers a bit of the foul odor of the rancid tallow. And the world is accustomed to permit studying before a tallow candle, and certainly a candle of tallow that has hardened which is called "stearin licht," which does not have a wick that becomes ash and there is no need to trim them at all—for it is obvious that it is permitted ab initio to study and to do work before them, and so we are accustomed. (In the printed Or Zarua HaGadol, siman 32, he lengthily proved that the halacha is not like Rabbah that even if it is two stories high, and the halacha is like Abaye and Rav Acha later on 149 who disagree with Rabbah, and it is a new matter).

It has already been explained that specifically one person is forbidden to read by the light of the lamp, but two are permitted, for if one comes to tilt it, the second will remind him, as it is not common that both of them would forget at the same moment that today is Shabbat. And this is specifically when they are occupied with one matter, even in two books, for when they are occupied with one matter, he sees what his fellow is doing. But when they are occupied with two matters, even in one book it is forbidden, because one does not supervise the actions of the second. And some say that with two books, even in one matter it is forbidden for this reason, for with two books one does not supervise his fellow. Therefore, it is forbidden to recite piyyutim on a Yom Tov that falls on Shabbat on Shabbat night when each one recites from his own machzor, even in a synagogue where there is a multitude of people, because one does not supervise the second; and such is the custom not to recite the Ma'ariv piyyutim on the night of a Yom Tov that falls on Shabbat. But the prayer is permitted from the siddur even for an individual in his home, because it is fluent in everyone's mouth and he will not come to tilt.

And specifically reading in a book is permitted for two people, but other types of examination, such as searching one's garments for lice or examining the difference between vessels—even for two people it is forbidden, because each one is occupied on his own, and even when they are occupied with one garment—this one is occupied with this corner of the garment and that one is occupied with another. However, if he is occupied with the matter, and another sits idle near him to watch over him—it is obvious that in all labors it is permitted, and all the more so regarding reading in a book. Therefore, regarding reading in a book, if there is another with him even if he is not reading, and he says to him: 'Pay attention to me so that I do not tilt'—it is permitted, and the same law applies if he says this to his wife. But regarding a minor—it appears to me that he cannot rely on him, even if the minor says that he will guard him, for he does not possess sufficient understanding to prevent him before the tilting, and all the more so an idolater is not effective.

And it has already been explained that an important person who is not accustomed on a weekday to tilt—it is permitted in all manners. So it is in the Gemara ibid., and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 4, and the Rambam omitted this, and I do not know why. However, there is also a difficulty regarding the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, for behold, it is explained in the Gemara that one who places himself over words of Torah like a commoner, like Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha—it is forbidden, see there, and why did they omit this? And perhaps they hold that this is not common in our generations. And it appears that this is the reasoning of the Rambam, for since a mishap occurred with Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha, as is explained in the Gemara, because he placed himself over words of Torah like a commoner—and certainly in our generations this could also be so. And perhaps the Rambam holds that all Torah scholars are in this category, and an "important person" means a wealthy man who is not a son of Torah, and since it is impossible to define a complete boundary in this—he omitted it and it is forbidden for everyone. And there is one who says that specifically when it is clear that it is not his way to tilt on a weekday, but in an ordinary case—we do not say so (Taz subsection 5), and according to this it also works out well why the Rambam omitted it, because it is impossible to know this clearly.

It is further stated in the Gemara there: that regarding a bonfire, even ten people are forbidden to read, because since they sit far from one another, one will not notice his fellow; and even if they sit close to one another, nevertheless one will not notice the other, because the ends of the firebrands are near them, and he will not notice when the one sitting next to him comes to ignite and poke the firebrand. And specifically to read in a book is forbidden facing the bonfire, for because he will want to look well into the book, he will come to poke. But when he sits near the bonfire to warm himself, it is permitted even though he sits near the ends of the firebrands, for why would he poke since he does not need to look. And there is one who is stringent that even in such a case he should not sit near the firebrands, for the reason that he might come to poke, (Taz, subsection 6) and it appears to me that this is an excessive stringency. (And also the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 9, took issue with him, see there, and likewise the Tosefet Shabbat, subsection 10, rejected his words). And it appears simple that just as with studying by a lamp it is permitted when a second person sits with him to watch over him, as I wrote in section 10, the same law applies also to a bonfire; for since he sits alone to watch over him, it is not similar to two who are reading. And there is one who is stringent in such a case regarding a bonfire, (Tosefet Shabbat, ibid.) and in my humble opinion it appears as I have written.

And also the law of a bonfire the Rambam omitted, and I do not know his reason. And perhaps he would interpret a different interpretation of the Gemara there, which asks against the one who says that two are permitted: 'But was it not taught: Neither one nor two', and Rava answers: Here it is regarding one matter, here it is regarding two matters, as we have explained. And afterward it says this matter of a bonfire, even ten are forbidden, and afterward it says that a distinguished person is permitted regarding a lamp, see there. And it is difficult, why did it interrupt with the law of a bonfire between the laws of a lamp, for it should have said this matter of a bonfire after this matter of a distinguished person. Therefore the Rambam interprets that this matter of a bonfire—it is an answer to the Baraita that forbids two. And that is to say, the Baraita deals with a bonfire, and it disagrees with the previous answer that distinguishes between one matter and two matters, and we hold according to the first answer, and therefore he rejected it from the halacha. (And it is possible that before him the version was Rav Huna said regarding a bonfire etc. see there and examine closely)

Schoolchildren may read by the light of the lamp, because the fear of their teacher is upon them, and they will not come to tilt it. The Rambam and the Tur wrote: "before their teacher," and so it appears, for then the fear of their teacher is upon them. The Rashba holds that even not in the presence of their teacher they are afraid, and the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 6 is like the Rashba. (Taz and Magen Avraham subsection 7). And it is permitted to read the chapter "Bameh Madlikin" by the light of the lamp, for behold, it mentions the prohibition of Shabbat, and how could one forget and tilt it? And specifically because he is studying the laws of lighting, but when he studies other laws of Shabbat—it is forbidden. And so too the songs of Shabbat, if he is not fluent in them—it is forbidden from the book before the lamp, for even though it mentions Shabbat—nevertheless he could forget for a moment, which is not the case when he studies the laws of lighting. And so too on the night of Yom Kippur—it is customary to say the Machzor before the light of the lamp, because the fear of Yom Kippur is upon them, and they will not forget that today is Yom Kippur, and they will not come to tilt it. And specifically during the time of prayer, for then the fear is great, but it is forbidden to study on the night of Yom Kippur from a book as on Shabbat, for after the prayer—the fear is not so great, as is perceived by the senses, and he will forget about Yom Kippur and come to tilt it. And so too the night of Pesach that occurs on Shabbat—it is permitted to read the Haggadah by the light of the lamp from a book, because every individual of Israel, even an am ha'aretz, is fluent in the main headings, and they will not come to tilt it, and it is like prayer which is permitted for this reason.

The teacher who teaches with the children—he may see by the light of the lamp from where the children shall read, and arrange the beginnings of the parashiyot with his mouth in the book, and he reads all the rest of the parashah by heart, for these children read them in the book, as when he sees the beginning of the parashah, he places the book in their hands (Rambam). And it is not specifically the beginnings of parashiyot, for this is the general rule: anything that he knows the parashah by heart, and in some small part needs to see in the book—it is permitted, since because he is not constantly peering into the book, he has a reminder and will not come to tilt. That is to say, since he does not require much peering into the book, he will not forget regarding Shabbat that he might come to tilt. And the same law applies to anything in which a person is expert, such as the study of Mishnayot and Gemara; if he is expert in the subject matter he is studying but needs to see a small part in the book—it is permitted for this reason, and the small part that he needs to see in the book, he may also express with his lips (Beit Yosef), and see in section 1.

Vessels that are similar to one another, and require scrutiny to distinguish between them—it is forbidden to examine them by the light of the candle. And even to distinguish between his garments and his wife's garments, if they are similar—it is forbidden to examine by the light of the candle, even though he is accustomed to them, and all the more so regarding other things. And the Rambam wrote: "Therefore, a waiter who is not permanent—it is forbidden for him to examine cups and bowls by the light of the candle, because he does not recognize them, whether with a candle of olive oil or with a candle of kerosene whose light is great. But a permanent waiter—it is permitted for him to examine cups and bowls by the light of the candle, because he does not require much scrutiny. And if it was a candle of olive oil—one does not instruct him to examine even though it is permitted, a decree lest he partake of it" thus far his words, and he wrote this according to his version in the Gemara there.

But according to the version of Rashi and his commentary, a permanent shamash is more stringent than one who is not permanent, because the permanent one must be very precise due to the fear of the owners. However, regarding naphtha—everything is permitted, because it smells foul and he will not come to tilt. And regarding oil—the permanent one is forbidden and the one who is not permanent is permitted if he acts on his own, but we do not instruct him that it is permitted. For Rashi explains "not permanent"—that he is not permanently with this master of the house, but rather serves him in a casual manner, therefore he is not so precise. And the Rambam explains "not permanent"—that it is not a long time that he has been with this master of the house, meaning that he is not yet permanent, and is not yet expert with the vessels, and needs to be more precise. And the Tosafot and the Rif and the Rosh explain a shamash who is not permanent according to the explanation of Rashi, and nevertheless they are more stringent regarding him, for since he is not yet permanent—he is more precise in order to find favor in the eyes of the owners, so that they will hire him permanently. And also according to them regarding naphtha—it is permitted in any case, first because its light is great, and furthermore because it smells foul and he will not use it for his needs. And regarding oil—the one who is not permanent is forbidden, and the permanent one: if he comes to check—we do not prevent him, but if he comes to ask—we do not instruct him that it is permitted ab initio. And as for the fact that according to the Rambam we are concerned regarding a shamash that he might use the oil for his needs, and we are not concerned with this concern regarding other uses of people—it is because he approaches the lamp very closely. (Beit Yosef) And also one should not ask regarding the permission for a permanent shamash because he does not need much scrutiny, is there any scrutiny less than the distinction between his garments and his wife's garments, for the reason they were lenient is because of cleanliness, (Ran) and so it is in the Yerushalmi there: "But he may look at what is in the cup and what is in the bowl and he is not concerned." And the reason: either because of cleanliness, and there is danger when it is not clean, or because it is for a brief moment, and there is no concern that he will tilt. And according to the reason of cleanliness—it is permitted to sort the vegetable from the waste, see there in the Yerushalmi (Magen Avraham subsection 10), and this is at the time of eating where he sorts and eats, for if not so—behold there is the prohibition of sorting. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is the custom to cover small children so they are not naked before the candles because of disparagement of the mitzvah, and so wrote the Rokeach. Thus far his words. And there is danger in this. (See Pesachim 112)