Siman 277

It is stated in the Gemara (120b): "It was taught: A lamp that is behind the door—one may open and close in his usual manner, and if it is extinguished, it is extinguished." But we conclude that this is not so, and it is forbidden because it is a pesik reisha, see there. And according to the commentary of Rashi, so it is, for the lamp is placed exactly opposite the door; that is, for example, the door is in the west and the lamp is fixed to the eastern wall of the house opposite the door that is in the west, and the room is small, and for one standing outside, the lamp is behind the door. And when he opens the door, the wind enters, and there is a concern lest the wind extinguish it, since it is close to the door due to the smallness of the room. (Bach, and the difficulty of the Tosafot is answered, see there). And the prohibition is only regarding the opening of the door, and not regarding the closing of the door. (ibid.) And according to this, regarding the prohibition of opening, there is no difference between when he opens in his usual manner all at once and when he opens little by little, since the prohibition is because of the wind from the outside that will enter with the opening of the door. (And this is what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 1, that that which is written "in his usual manner" is an error, for according to the commentary of Rashi there is no difference, see there).

And even though a common wind does not extinguish the lamp—nevertheless, they decreed on account of an uncommon wind, as will be explained regarding opening opposite a bonfire. And according to this, there is no difference between opening all at once and opening little by little as has been written, and our teacher, the Rema, who wrote that the prohibition is to open in his usual manner—they wrote that it is a printing error. (Magen Avraham ibid.) But in truth, in the Rosh there it is also written "in his usual manner" specifically, and the Rivash in his responsa (siman 394) explained this: This is the wording of Rashi, of blessed memory, who explained that it is a psik reisha that the wind extinguishes—he was not speaking of the wind that enters through the doorway... rather he intended the wind that is created by the swinging of the door and its opening, for this is like one who waves a fan before the lamp etc. Thus far his words. And according to this, the prohibition is only when opening in his usual manner all at once, for then a wind is created, and not when opening little by little. (And the Korban Netanel there explained this of his own accord and so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, and the Magen Avraham did not see the Rivash)

And according to this: according to this interpretation, the prohibition of opening the door is only in the usual manner, but gently—it is permitted. And this is in a common wind, but in an uncommon wind—it is certainly prohibited, because of the wind from outside. And one should not ask that if so, why do we not decree a common wind on account of an uncommon wind, as in the case of a bonfire which will be explained. It can be said that they are not comparable, for a bonfire where the fire is over a large area—it is unavoidable that it will ignite some part, but a candle that gives off a little light and is somewhat far from the door—it is not a certainty that it will be extinguished, and it is sufficient that it be prohibited in an uncommon wind, but not to decree a common wind on account of an uncommon wind, (it seems to me) and see in section 7.

And Rabbeinu Chananel explained: that the lamp is placed on the wall behind the door, and when one opens the door it knocks against the wall, and there is reason to fear lest it be extinguished. And according to his explanation as well, the prohibition is only regarding opening. And Ri explains that the lamp is fixed to the door itself from behind it, and therefore it is forbidden to open it and to close it, for in both of them one brings the oil closer to the lamp and it is "kindling," or distances it and it is "extinguishing." And it appears that the Rambam intended this explanation in chapter 5, law 17, where he wrote: "A lamp that is behind the door — it is forbidden to open and close the door in his usual manner because he extinguishes it, rather he should be careful at the time he opens and at the time he closes" thus far his words, meaning that he should be careful to open or close gently. And that which he wrote "because he extinguishes it" — is because he holds that by means of the shaking, the oil is distanced from the wick. And the Maggid Mishneh wrote that the Rambam explains according to the explanation of Rabbeinu Chananel, and it is a matter of wonder, for if so, why is it forbidden to close. (Bach) And behold, according to this explanation the prohibition is only with a lamp of oil and not with one of wax or tallow, which is not the case for the two previous explanations, as is understood. And for the halacha all the explanations are true, and they did not disagree except in the explanation of the words of the Gemara, but for the halacha they did not disagree.

And know that in the Yerushalmi, Kirah (halacha 7), it is stated: "A lamp that is placed behind the door—one may open and close it on Shabbat, provided that he does not intend to extinguish nor to kindle. Rav and Shmuel interpret this as referring to one who forgets, and they curse whoever does so: 'May Hashem cut off the man who does this, etc.' (Malachi 2:12)" Thus far its words. And this is its explanation: one opens and closes gently, provided that he does not intend to extinguish nor to kindle, meaning that he does not intend to distance the oil or bring it closer; and naturally, when he opens and closes in his usual manner, it is a pesik reisha as in our Talmud. And Rav and Shmuel said that even this is in a case of one who forgets, for it is necessary to permit opening and closing gently. But in the case of one who initially places a lamp behind the door and kindles it on Shabbat—they curse him, because it is close to coming to a Torah prohibition. And according to this, we have learned from the Yerushalmi that when a person has a fixed lamp behind the door, he should not kindle it initially for Shabbat. (And it is necessary to explain it thus, for behold Rav and Shmuel say so, and in our Shas 120b, "Rav cursed regarding it," and perforce the intention is to opening and closing gently. And that which the Korban HaEdah explained, that by placing it, it becomes a basis ledavar ha'asur, see there—it is against the words of the Tosafot there, and it is clear as I have written. And the Taz, subsection 2, wrote that according to this explanation it does not avail to open and close gently, see there, and this is against the words of the Rambam that we brought. And it is clear that gently it is permitted, and so wrote the Bach, see there; and also that which was written in the Shulchan Aruch according to the explanation of our teacher Chananel that even closing is forbidden—the Bach and the Magen Avraham, subsection 4, have already questioned him, and the Taz, subsection 1, labored to settle it with forced words, see there and examine carefully.)

Candles standing on the table on Shabbat night with a window opposite them—it is forbidden to open the window on Shabbat, so that the wind does not extinguish them. And even in a common wind it is forbidden, for this is like a candle behind the door according to the explanation of Rashi, and our teacher, the Rema, ruled accordingly in section 1. But to close it—is permitted, and even though we see with our senses that when the window is open the candles burn more intensely due to the wind, and when one closes it they do not burn with such intensity—nevertheless, this is not in the category of extinguishing, for the quantity of the fire is the same, rather it is only that through the wind it burns more intensely, and this is neither kindling nor extinguishing, and the prohibition of opening is so that they are not extinguished entirely because of the wind. And it is obvious that this is when the table is not far from the window, but at a distance—we have no concern with it. And behold, we have seen that the masses are not careful in this, and in the summer during the heat they open the windows at night during the meal in order to breathe fresh air, and one must warn them about this. (And it is possible to judge in their favor since the primary prohibition is because of a decree regarding an uncommon wind, and in the summer uncommon winds are not frequent. This is not the case regarding a bonfire which will be explained, which is in the winter to warm oneself before it, for then winds and storms are frequent as is known, and delve into this.) And see in section 7.

It is forbidden to open a door opposite a bonfire that is somewhat close to the door, for the wind will kindle the bonfire when the wind is very strong. Therefore, even if there is only a common wind there—we decree on account of an uncommon wind. And even though an uncommon wind is not frequent, for that is why it is called an "uncommon wind"—nevertheless, they decreed in this matter. And perhaps because they make the bonfire during the rainy season to warm themselves before it, and at that time winds and storms are frequent, as I have written. But to lock the door when it was open opposite the bonfire—it is permitted, and there is no concern of extinguishing in this. And even for those who forbid in siman 259 to plug the oven—here it is permitted, for in a house there is much air, and it is not similar to an oven, see there. (Magen Avraham, subsection 6) And know, that which we wrote according to the method of Rashi that the essence of the prohibition is because of an uncommon wind, as I wrote in section 2 and section 3 and likewise in section 6—regarding opening a window opposite a candle we wrote so, and so the Bach wrote explicitly according to the method of Rashi, and this is his wording: "For our teacher explains in the commentary of Rashi that it is not a pesik reisha except in an uncommon wind, but we decree... as with a bonfire." Thus far his words. And I saw one who wrote that regarding a candle—it is forbidden by the essence of the law even in a common wind. (Magen Avraham, siman 514, subsection 10) And I wonder from where we have this to say so, and I have not seen one of the poskim who holds so. However, he also wrote that when there is no wind at all—our teacher, the Rema, permits there, and he disagreed with him. And according to this, one can also find merit for one who is not careful to open a window opposite the candles, as I wrote in section 6. (And the Magen Avraham compares the law of this siman to that which is there, and in my humble opinion it is no comparison at all, for there the Rema says to place the candle in a place where the wind rules, see there, and it deals with Yom Tov there, and his intention is that he moves the candle outside—and in this certainly even a common wind will extinguish it. But here on Shabbat, when the candles stand in the house on the table— a common wind will not extinguish it, and delve into this.)

If one placed a lamp upon a tray or upon a table or upon a chest while it was still day, and it was not his intention to leave it there, but rather he forgot to remove it before darkness, and he requires the place of the lamp for use on Shabbat - he may shake the tray or the table or the chest and the lamp falls to the ground, and he may move them to any place he desires, for in a case of forgetting, it does not become a basis for a forbidden object. Provided that he does not intend to extinguish the lamp with this shaking, and if it is extinguished, it is a matter of unintentional action, for this is not a psik reisha, as it is possible that the lamp will fall and not be extinguished. And this is with a lamp of wax or of tallow, or even with one of oil provided there is no longer oil in the lamp and only the wick is burning, for if there is oil there - it is forbidden to shake, for the oil will necessarily be moved, and it would be extinguishing or kindling as this is a psik reisha, and certainly if the oil spills - it would be extinguishing. Nevertheless, by means of a non-Jew - it is permitted, for every psik reisha is permitted through him, as I wrote in siman 253. And also with a lamp of wax and tallow - it is better to do so by means of a non-Jew if it is possible to obtain one easily and tell him. And if he requires the entire place of the tray or the table and the chest, he may move it with the lamp that is upon it, for this is moving from the side for the sake of a permitted purpose, and it is permitted as will be explained in siman 309.

And all this is when he forgot to remove the lamp before darkness. But if he intentionally left the lamp so that it would be there at the onset of Shabbat—behold the table or the table and the chest become a basis for a forbidden object, and it is muktzeh like the lamp itself, and it is forbidden to shake it. And shaking it does not avail, for even when the lamp is removed—it is forbidden to move it, and only touching is permitted, according to the law of all muktzeh which is permitted in touching but not in moving, even with a wax lamp. And only by means of a non-Jew is it permitted to move it, for all muktzeh is permitted by means of a non-Jew, as I wrote in siman 276. And likewise it is permitted to shake it by means of a non-Jew, even with one of oil, even though it is a psik reisha as I wrote, and only touching is he permitted himself as I wrote. And the same law applies that it is permitted to touch the candelabras in the synagogue even at the time that the lamps are burning in them, and he should only be careful that he does not swing the candelabra. Therefore, with a candelabra hanging in the air, which they call "hanging lights"—it is forbidden to touch, for he will certainly swing it, and see what I wrote in siman 308 and in siman 309 section 11.

And know, that which we wrote that when one leaves it so that it will be there at the onset of Shabbat—it becomes a basis for a forbidden object, it will be explained further on in siman 309 that some say a basis for a forbidden object is only when it was in his mind that it should be there the entire day of Shabbat. But if his intention was to remove it on Shabbat morning by means of a non-Jew, or by means of moving it from the side such as shaking it off and the like—its law is like one who forgot, and it does not become a basis for a forbidden object. And in a place of loss one may rely on this opinion, to shake it off from the table or the board or the chest if it is a candle of wax or tallow and that contains no oil, such as if it fell on the table and he fears that it will burn the tablecloth or the table—he shall shake the candle from it and it will fall to the ground. And if there was bread or bowls on the table at the onset of Shabbat—the table does not become a basis at all, even if his intention was for the candle to be there the entire Shabbat, because it becomes a basis also for the bread or for the bowls, and it is a basis for a forbidden object and a permitted object, and it is permitted as I wrote there. (The Gra"z in section 6 wrote that also the tablecloth does not become a basis for the candle, and he follows his reasoning in siman 309 section 9. But the Ta"z in subsection 1 did not rule so there, and there it will be explained with the help of Heaven, and there are several other laws regarding this matter, and it will be explained there. And the candle attached to the stander—it is not a basis for the candle.)

It is permitted to place a Shabbat candle while it is still day upon a tree, and for it to remain there the entire Shabbat, but on Yom Tov—it is forbidden. And the reason is simple, for on Yom Tov, when the candle is permitted for handling and lighting—we fear lest he climb the tree on Yom Tov to take it, and he will be found using that which is attached to the ground, which is forbidden, as written in siman 336. But on Shabbat, since the candle is forbidden for handling—this concern does not exist. And even though through a non-Jew it is permitted—nevertheless, what of it if the non-Jew uses that which is attached to the ground, for to the Israelite the candle is forbidden for handling even after it is extinguished, as it is muktzeh.

It is permitted to invert a clay bowl over a burning lamp so that the fire does not catch onto a beam, or for any other necessary purpose. (See Turei Zahav subsection 8; and it is not difficult at all, for this is the wording of the Gemara 43a, and it adopts the common way of things.) And it is simple that one must leave a little air from the bowl for the lamp, for if not so, the lamp will be extinguished, and it would be "extinguishing." And there is no great novelty in this law, for why should it be forbidden? Behold, there is no "nullifying a vessel from its readiness" when he inverts it over it, and he can remove it. Rather, it is because in the Gemara there is one who holds that a vessel is only moved for the sake of something that may be moved, and not for the sake of something that may not be moved, and according to him it would be forbidden to move a permitted vessel in order to invert it over the lamp—it comes to teach us that we do not rule accordingly, as the Gemara concludes there; see there.