Siman 276

In siman 325 it will be explained that regarding a non-Jew who performed a labor on Shabbat: if for himself—it is permitted for an Israelite to benefit from this, if there is no concern lest he increase for his sake, see there; and if he performed it for the sake of the Israelite—it is forbidden for any Israelite to benefit from this on Shabbat. And it is not similar to an object that comes from outside the techum, which is permitted to another Israelite, for techumin is rabbinic, and furthermore, techum is not an absolute prohibition, for to this person it is outside the techum and to this person it is within the techum. (Ran, chapter 16) And there is a practical difference between the resolutions: for according to the first resolution, when he performed a rabbinic labor for the sake of the Israelite—it is forbidden to the one for whom it was performed, but for others it is permitted as with techumin. And according to the second resolution—even regarding a rabbinic prohibition it is forbidden to every person, and there in siman 325 it implies like the first resolution, see there.

And behold, above in siman 244 it was also explained that a labor performed by a non-Jew for the sake of a Jew—it is forbidden to benefit from it, and it was explained there that this is when he performed it for the benefit of the Israelite. However, if he performed it for his own benefit, such as where he takes payment for his labor, and the labor is by a fixed contract, not by daily wages—it is permitted, because he acts for his own sake, and not for the sake of the Israelite; see there. But here—there is no distinction, even if he performed it for his own benefit, such as where he takes payment by contract, that whenever the Israelite shall need it he will perform it and receives such and such payment, and now when he acts he acts for his own sake—nevertheless it is forbidden. And the difference is that there we are dealing with the Israelite benefiting from it on a weekday, therefore if the non-Jew acted for his own sake—it does not appear as his agent. But here we are dealing with the body of the Israelite benefiting from this on Shabbat itself, and therefore even if he acted entirely on his own, since he acted for the sake of the Israelite—it is forbidden for the Israelite to benefit from this labor on Shabbat itself.

Therefore, a non-Jew who lit a candle for the sake of a Jew—it is forbidden to every person, even to one for whom it was not lit. And there is no distinction in this between whether he fixed a wage for him or did not fix a wage, or whether he did it as a contractor or as a hired laborer, for since the Jew benefits from the labor itself on Shabbat—it is forbidden in every case. And if he lit it for his own needs—it is permitted for every Jew to use its light, and the same law applies if he told him to light for the sake of an ill person whose life is not in danger, for we hold that it is permitted to speak to a non-Jew, or for the needs of children, who are like an ill person whose life is not in danger—that it is permitted for every Jew to use it, for anything that was lit in a permitted manner—is permitted.

Ostensibly, since it is forbidden for the Israelite to benefit from a lamp that a non-Jew lit for him, according to this, if it was dark in the house and he lit it for the sake of the Israelite—behold, he benefits from its light against his will, and we should obligate the Israelite to leave the house. However, our teacher, the Rema, did not rule so at the end of section 1, and this is his wording: "However, if the non-Jew did so in the house of an Israelite of his own accord—the Israelite does not need to leave, even though he benefits from the light or from the fire." Thus far his words. And the reason for the matter is: that this benefit is considered like a benefit that comes to a person against his will, for he did not intend for it, and this is also called: it is impossible to withdraw from this benefit, and how can we tell him to leave his house. And in a place where it is impossible and he does not intend—it is certainly permitted, as is found in Pesachim (25b), and only to look at a book or other things is he forbidden by this light. And it appears to me that to drink hot water is also permitted, for even in the dark it is possible to drink, but in the light there is more comfort, and it is also like a benefit that comes against his will. However, it is certain that he is obligated to protest against him for the future, and to tell him that if he does so a second time—he will expel him from his house (Magen Avraham, subsection 4), for if not so, behold he will do so always, for he knows that he does this to please the Israelite.

It appears that if the non-Jew lit for himself and for the Israelite—it is permitted for the Israelite to use its light, unless he made the primary purpose for the Israelite and he is secondary to him. This is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: "If a person tells his manservant or his maidservant to go with him and they lit the candle, even though they also need it—this is not for their need, since the primary purpose of the walking is for the Israelite." Thus far his words. And it is explicitly implied that this is because the primary purpose of the walking is for the Israelite. But otherwise, even though his intention was for the Israelite as well, nevertheless, since he also intended for himself—it is permitted; and see in section 8.

The Tur wrote: Specifically when he lit a lamp for his own needs, it is permitted for an Israelite to benefit from its light. However, if he lit a fire for his own needs or for a person who is ill but not in danger—it is forbidden to warm oneself against it, lest he increase it for his sake. Thus far his words. That is to say, if he made a wood fire to warm oneself against them because of the cold, and it is the way of the world that for two people one needs more wood than for one, for when the fire is small it will not suffice for two to warm themselves against it—we are concerned lest he increase it for his sake. And even though later in siman 325 it is explained that only with one's acquaintance are we concerned lest he increase it for his sake, nevertheless, with a fire it is the way of people that when another person comes to warm himself against it—they add a little wood even for one who is not an acquaintance, for when he sits next to him he becomes like an acquaintance regarding this matter, (see Beit Yosef) and there are those who disagree on this (Magen Avraham, subsection 3).

But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, brought two opinions regarding this and leans toward permission, and this is his wording: "And the same law applies to one who makes a bonfire for his own needs or for the needs of an ill person; and there are those who prohibit in the case of a bonfire, for we decree lest he increase for his sake." Thus far his words. And he brought the opinion of the one who permits first, and explained this in his great book: that the Semag and Sefer HaTerumah and the Mordechai in the first chapter and the Hagahot Maimoniot wrote that it is permitted for an Israelite to warm himself before the fire that the non-Jew made for his own needs or for the needs of an ill person, see there. And there is one who says that they do not disagree at all, for those who permit are dealing with a case where the bonfire was burning from the eve of Shabbat, having been made permissibly for the sake of the Israelite, and afterward on Shabbat he added wood—which is permitted. And those who prohibit are dealing with a case where the non-Jew made it on Shabbat for his own sake—where it is then prohibited (Bach), but it does not imply so. And all this is regarding a bonfire, but regarding the heating of the winter house furnace—it is certainly permitted according to all opinions, for in this it is not relevant to increase for his sake, and it is like a lamp, for a lamp for one is a lamp for a hundred (Magen Avraham, subsection 3).

And know, that regarding what we wrote that when he lit the lamp for himself and for the Israelite it is permitted, there is one who says that for both of them—it is forbidden. (Ibid. subsection 6) And his proof is from below in siman 515, regarding that which was brought from outside the techum or if he gathered fruits for himself and for the Israelite—it is forbidden, see there. And it is a wondrous thing, for what is the connection between this and that? For there, when he acts for both of them, he increases more than if he had acted for himself alone; but here, a lamp for one is a lamp for a hundred, and why should it be forbidden since he acted also for himself, and the concept of increase does not apply to this. (And see Eliyah Rabbah subsection 7 who also rejected it so, except that there stood against him the words of the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah at the end of the chapter "Kol Kitvei," where it implies that it is forbidden. But in truth, the intention of the Rambam there is when the primary act was done for the Israelite, as is clear from the words of the Bartenura, see there; and so wrote the Rashba at the end of the chapter "Kol Kitvei" based on the Yerushalmi there. And there are variant versions in the Yerushalmi, see Beit Yosef at the end of this siman, and the decision of the Rashba is for permission.)

An Israelite and a non-Jew who were reclining together and he lit the candle: if the majority are non-Jews—it is permitted to use its light, and if the majority are Israelites—it is forbidden to use its light, for presumably he lit for the sake of the majority. And even half and half—it is forbidden, for there is no clarity that he lit not for the sake of the Israelites. However, if there is some proof that he lit for himself, such as if we see that immediately upon lighting he uses its light, then even with a majority of Israelites—it is permitted, for we see that he lit for himself. And even if we say that his intention was for both of them—it is also permitted, as I wrote in section 5. However, if the non-Jew is in the house of the Israelite, and knows that for an Israelite it is forbidden, and he acts with deception to light the candle and use it a little so that the Israelite may use it—it is certainly forbidden, for his primary intention is for the sake of the Israelite. (Piskei Tosafot, chapter Kol Kitvei) And I remember in my youth they used to practice on Shabbat nights in the winter, when the nights were long, they would call a non-Jew to ask him: do you desire a flask of brandy, and he would say that he desires it, and they would answer him, it is our desire to give it to you, but what can we do as it is impossible to find it in the dark. And he would light a candle and drink the brandy and go on his way, and they used the light. And it seems that it is completely permitted with a non-Jew who is not accustomed to it, and there is no concern that he is acting with deception. And even though the Israelite performs a deception in this—nevertheless, what do we care, ultimately the lighting is for him alone. This is not the case if the non-Jew is the one acting with deception—then the lighting is for the sake of the Israelite, and it is forbidden. And this is the principle: that if according to our understanding he is not acting with deception to do a favor for the Israelite, but rather for himself he acts—even if he is a member of the household it is permitted. And if not—even if he is not a member of the household it is forbidden, except that most often a member of the household may be acting with deception, and therefore one must understand this.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: "If there is a lamp in the house of an Israelite, and a non-Jew comes and lights another lamp—it is permitted to use its light while the first lamp is still burning. However, after the first one is extinguished—it is forbidden to use the light of the second one. Similarly, if he added oil to the burning lamp—it is permitted to use it until the oil that was already in it is consumed, and afterwards it is forbidden." Thus far his words, and this is from the words of the Tur, see there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book: that even the one who permits in the case of a bonfire—forbids here, since the beginning of the lighting of the second lamp is for the sake of the Israelite, see there, and therefore he ruled here anonymously to forbid. And some say the opposite, that even the one who forbids in the case of a bonfire—permits here, for regarding a bonfire we fear that he will increase it for the sake of the Israelite, and it will turn out that he lights for the sake of the Israelite. This is not the case here at the time he lit the other lamp; even granted that he acted for the sake of the Israelite—nevertheless, there was no benefit to the Israelite since the first one exists, and it turns out that at the time he lit it, it was like nothing. Therefore, even afterwards the prohibition cannot take effect, for the essence of the prohibition belongs to the time of the performance of the labor. (Bach and see Taz subsection 3). However, if the intention of the non-Jew was so that it would illuminate for the Israelite after the extinguishing of the first—there are grounds to forbid, (ibid.) and if so, we also say this ordinarily. (ibid.) However, according to those who permit in the case of a bonfire—it is certainly permitted here (Taz ibid.).

And behold, regarding the matter of a bonfire, we find in the Hagahot Maimoniyot (chapter 6, letter 6) with this wording: "I remember when I was with my teacher (he is the Maharam of Rothenburg) in the tower of Wurzburg, we made a bonfire on Erev Shabbat in order to warm ourselves by it on Shabbat, and when we sat until the bonfire was almost extinguished, servants came and made it large. And they said explicitly that they did it for our benefit, and we sat near them and rejoiced in the matter." Thus far his words. And since the Maharam, the teacher of the Rosh, performed an action regarding a bonfire to be lenient, therefore, even though one can distinguish it from a candle as has been explained, in any case, one who is lenient even after the first extinguishing has not lost. (ibid.) And one should not say that the permission was because the cold was great, and it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to heat the oven as will be explained, for if so, this is no novelty; and from his words it is clear that the permission is because the bonfire was prepared from Erev Shabbat. And behold, in these laws one can distinguish one from another through logical arguments, but since this is not a Torah prohibition, one should not rebuke one who relies on the lenient opinions.

In the northern countries where the cold is great during the winter days, the matter is simple: everyone is considered ill in the presence of such great cold, and one may tell a non-Jew and he performs the labor. All the more so when the non-Jew stokes the furnace—that it is permitted to benefit from this, and one who is stringent in this is nothing but among the eccentric. Our teacher Yerucham wrote that our teacher Yaakov of Orleans would tell a non-Jew to light the fire and to fix it on Shabbat, for everyone is considered ill in the presence of cold. (Beit Yosef) However, if the cold is not great there, or if on this day the cold is not great—it is certainly forbidden to tell a non-Jew to stoke the furnace, and even if the non-Jew did so of his own accord, one must protest. But when there are minors in the house—it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to stoke the furnace, for minors are considered ill in the presence of cold even when the cold is not so great, and then the adults may also warm themselves, since it was stoked permissibly for the sake of the minors. (See Magen Avraham subsection 15, who wrote that the world customarily acts with leniency even when the cold is not great and for the sake of adults, for they hold that a shevut is permitted for one in distress, as written in siman 328. But we hold that only a shevut d'shevut is permitted for one in distress, as written in siman 307, and therefore they should be careful not to say on Shabbat to stoke, see there. And it is difficult to decide when the cold is called great and when it is called not great, and in our countries in the months of Tevet and Shevat the cold is very great, and it is impossible to establish a clear boundary in this, and not all people are equal in this.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: "Some say that it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to light a candle for him for the Shabbat meal, because they hold that telling a non-Jew is permitted even for a complete melakhah in a place of a mitzvah; based on this, many are accustomed to be lenient in the matter, to command a non-Jew to light candles for the needs of a meal, particularly for a wedding feast or a circumcision, and no one protests against them. However, one should be stringent in a place where there is no great need, for most poskim disagree with this opinion; see below, siman 307, section 5." Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: For we say in Eruvin (67b) that it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to bring hot water for the needs of a circumcision through a courtyard that is not incorporated in an eruv. From this, the Rambam learned in chapter 6 that any telling of a non-Jew is permitted for a rabbinic shevut in a place of a mitzvah or some need of illness; see there. Our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot in Bava Kamma (80b), wrote: That for all mitzvot they did not permit telling a non-Jew regarding a shevut, they only permitted it for the needs of a circumcision, and this is the opinion of the Tur below in siman 338; see there. However, the Ran at the end of chapter 19 brought that the author of the Ittur wrote that even for a Torah melakhah it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to act in a place of a mitzvah, for he interprets in Eruvin that they permitted telling a non-Jew to bring the hot water through a public domain, and he compares all mitzvot to circumcision. (See Beit Yosef in siman 307) The Tosafot and the Tur distinguish circumcision from other mitzvot, because circumcision itself overrides Shabbat.

And now the matter is perplexing, to rely on a minority opinion in a case where all the poskim disagree with him, and it is enough for us that we rely on the opinion of the Rambam to compare all the mitzvot to milah regarding a rabbinic shevut. And it appears clearly that our teacher, the Rema, himself was not comfortable with this, but rather he came to provide some justification for those who do so, and in truth they wrote that "it is better that they be unintentional and not intentional," and therefore we do not protest against them. (Bach and Magen Avraham, subsection 9) But if it is within one's power to protest—it is obvious that we are obligated to protest, and in our time we have not heard of being lenient in this. (And so wrote the Shelah that Heaven forbid one should be lenient in this, and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, and now it is within the power to protest because they will listen to us.)

And know that this which has been explained, that when a non-Jew lit a candle for his own need—it is permitted for an Israelite to use its light, this is even when he needs it for his own sake for the business of the Israelite. For example, the maidservants in an Israelite home who need to clean the Israelite's vessels after eating, and they lit a candle for this—it is permitted for the Israelite to use its light, for since the labor of the Israelite is incumbent upon them—they are lighting for their own sake for what they must do. And proof for this is from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3, who wrote: "If a person says to his servant... to go with him and they lit the candle...—this is not for the need of the non-Jew, since the primary purpose of the walking is for the Israelite." Thus far his words. And it implies explicitly that he is engaged in the labor of the Israelite, and even so the prohibition is only because the Israelite called him to go, and the primary purpose of the walking is for him. But if he were going of his own accord—it is perfectly fine, and so too anything similar to this.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: That it is permitted to tell a non-Jew to go with him to take a lamp that is already lit, since he is only performing the mere carrying of the lamp. Thus far his words. That is to say, even though regarding a Torah prohibition, such as to kindle—it is forbidden when the primary purpose of the walking was for the sake of the Israelite, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, for this is not called "acting for himself"—nevertheless, regarding the rabbinic prohibition of muktzeh it is permitted, and it is called "acting for his own need." However, if there is no need for the non-Jew at all—in such a case it is forbidden to tell him to carry the lamp, for they did not permit amira l'akum for a rabbinic shevut except for the purpose of a mitzvah or a slight illness, as has been explained, but without this—it is forbidden. Nevertheless, it is still not understood, for regarding all this, granted that when the non-Jew acts—it is called acting for himself, but regardless, why is it permitted to tell him to act. And it must be said that since he acts for himself—it is permitted, as will be explained at the end of siman 307, that it is permitted to tell him to perform melakha for himself. (According to our explanation it is explained in the Magen Avraham, subsection 11, that the permission is since he needs this, and see there subsection 10 that one should not forbid it on the grounds that the oil is swaying, for behold he does not intend for this, and see there in the name of the Radbaz that one should not permit this except for Torah scholars, lest one come to be drawn after it, see there.)

And behold, according to what has been explained, it is forbidden to tell a non-Jew to move the lamp while it is burning from place to place, yet the world is accustomed to permit this. And the truth is so, for it is found in the Hagahot Maimoniyot in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, that it is permitted to tell a non-Jew: "Bring the burning lamp," for the prohibition is only due to muktzeh, and moving from the side is permitted regarding muktzeh to do oneself. And since there is a permission for an Israelite by means of moving from the side—therefore it is also permitted to tell a non-Jew to move it with a complete movement. (ibid. subsection 11) And in siman 325, section 10, our teacher, the Rema, brought this opinion regarding telling a non-Jew to bring beer or other liquids through a karmelit for this reason, since it is possible to go there and drink. And he wrote there that this should not be permitted except for the need of Shabbat and in a time of pressing need, see there, but without this one should be stringent in the matter. And why did he not mention this here? (See the Taz there, subsection 10, who raised this difficulty). And it appears to me that it is not comparable to here, for there, when he goes outside, the matter is publicized. Furthermore, here there is another reason for permission, for behold, that which he tells him to move the lamp—it is because he wants to take some object or to make use of something there, and this thing he could take or use with difficulty even without the lamp, which is not the case there. (See the Magen Avraham who mentioned this reasoning in the name of the Hagahot Maimoniyot).

He further wrote in section 4: That it is permitted to protest against a non-Jew who comes to light a lamp or to add oil. Thus far his words. That is to say, so that we should not err by saying that just as it is forbidden for us to command him to perform a labor, so too it is forbidden for us to prevent him from performing a labor—it comes to teach us that this is not so; on the contrary, if the lamp belongs to an Israelite, he is obligated to protest against him, and only in the case of a fire did they permit it because of loss, as written in siman 334. And some say that if he protested against him and he lit it, it is permitted to use its light (Magen Avraham subsection 13 in the name of the Bach), for it is like one who lights for himself, since he protested against him (Bach). However, there must be no artifice in this (Magen Avraham ibid.), meaning that if the non-Jew understands that his protesting against him is only lip service, but the Israelite's true desire is that he should light—for in such a case it is obvious that it is for the sake of the Israelite, and it is forbidden to use it. However, even without artifice, the permission is perplexing, for in the end he lit for the sake of the Israelite, and why should it be permitted to use it? (And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 16). And it seems that he is only not obligated to leave his house, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of section 1, and as we explained in section 4, but not to actually use its light. (And it seems to me that the Magen Avraham hinted at this in subsection 13 in what he wrote to see the end of section 1; see there and examine it carefully.)