Siman 279

Know, that in this siman and also below in the laws of muktzeh, where the laws of a lamp were explained regarding whether it is permitted to move it or forbidden, because it is a base for the flame and due to the reason of "since it was set aside during twilight," as will be explained, and therefore if they did not light it on Shabbat it is permitted to move it, and similarly through a condition some say it is permitted, as will be explained—this is all regarding their lamps, which were a vessel like all vessels and they placed oil in it and lit it, and were it not for the lighting it would be a permitted vessel. But regarding our lamp which is called a "leuchter," or our candlesticks which are called "lampen"—they themselves are muktzeh, for the reason that they are not fit for any use except to light in them, and it is "a vessel whose work is for a forbidden purpose" that is not fit for a permitted work at all, and it is absolute muktzeh even when they did not light it at all. And because there are those who err in this, we have therefore written this, that our lamps and candlesticks are always forbidden to be moved on Shabbat.

A lamp that was lit on that same Shabbat, even though it was extinguished—it is forbidden to move it, for since it was set aside during bein hashemashot, as it was a base for a forbidden object, it is set aside for the entire day. This is a great principle in muktzeh, because during bein hashemashot, which is the beginning of Shabbat and the essence of Shabbat, if the prohibition of muktzeh took effect upon it then—we say: "Since it was set aside during bein hashemashot, it is set aside for the entire day," and this is like the acquisition of the place of rest, the essence of which is during bein hashemashot. And even according to the one who holds in siman 309 that we do not say it becomes a base for a forbidden object unless it was his intention for it to be there for the entire day of Shabbat, and not when it was his intention to remove it the next day, as written in siman 277, section 10—he admits regarding "since it was set aside during bein hashemashot, it is set aside for the entire day," which we say even if it was destined to be extinguished in the middle of Shabbat. And the reason appears to be that if the status of base is only because he placed the muktzeh upon it, such as placing a lamp on the table or a stone on the mouth of a barrel, and so too anything similar to this where he has the ability to remove the muktzeh whenever he wishes by means of shaking or moving from the side—in this case there is one who says that we require that he place it for the entire Shabbat. But in a base such as this, where immediately upon lighting the lamp it is not in his power to remove the lamp from the flame—in this case, according to everyone, it depends only on bein hashemashot, even if it was destined to be extinguished in the middle of Shabbat. (So it appears in my humble opinion, and see Taz, subsection 2, and to me it appears so from all the poskim, and examine it well.)

But a lamp that was lit in the middle of Shabbat, for example, a non-Jew lit it, or it was lit for a woman in childbirth or for a dangerously ill person—it is permitted to move the lamp after it has been extinguished, according to what we maintain in siman 310 that there is no muktzeh for half of Shabbat. That is to say, only during twilight do we say "since etc.," but not in the middle of Shabbat, for we do not say: "since it was set aside for part of Shabbat, it is set aside for the entire Shabbat." Therefore, when it is extinguished—it is permitted to move it, and so it is proven in the Gemara (45a), that if there is fear that they will punish him—it is permitted to move the lamp after it has been extinguished. (And what Rashi wrote there "danger"—is not literal, and the Magen Avraham in subsection 1 took it literally, and it is a wonder, and see in the Machatzit HaShekel. And in the Tosefet Shabbat he wrote in the name of the Birkei Yosef that one who feels pain in his eyes and the light of the lamp is harmful to him—nevertheless it is forbidden to move it, see there, and this is also a great wonder. However, if he can do it through a non-Jew or a child—it is certainly better, and if not, it seems in my humble opinion that it is permitted to do it himself, for an eye illness is close to danger.)

And likewise, the leftover oil in a lamp that was lit for that Shabbat—it is forbidden to handle it or to derive benefit from it on that Shabbat even after it was extinguished. For since during bein hashemashot it was forbidden to derive benefit from the oil due to the prohibition of extinguishing, we say "since it was set aside during bein hashemashot, it is set aside for the entire day," and furthermore for the reason that it was set aside for its mitzvah. However, for this latter reason it would not be forbidden to handle on Yom Tov, when it is permitted to light; but for the first reason it is forbidden even on Yom Tov, as extinguishing is forbidden on Yom Tov, and it will be explained in siman 514, and regarding Shabbat there is no practical difference in this. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 2) And there it will be explained regarding a candle of wax or of tallow—that it is possible that it is permitted even according to the first reason; see there.

This lamp of which we said that it is forbidden to move it—it is forbidden even for the sake of its use or its place. And it is not similar to all muktzeh whose primary function is for a forbidden purpose, which is permitted for the sake of its use or its place, as I wrote in siman 308; for there, even during twilight, it was permitted to move it for the sake of its use or its place, as any object whose primary function is for a forbidden purpose was never forbidden for the sake of its use or its place, as I wrote there. However, the lamp while it is burning, as it has become a base for the flame—it is obvious that it is forbidden even for the sake of its use or its place, and therefore it is also forbidden for the entire Shabbat in such cases. (Beit Yosef) And there is one who permitted it, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2 that his words did not seem correct, see there, and for the reason that has been explained. And there is one who wrote that the reason of those who permit is because they hold like the second opinion in siman 309, that it only becomes a base when it is his intention for it to remain there for the entire Shabbat, and regarding a lamp, it was not his intention for the entire Shabbat, and therefore it is permitted after it is extinguished for the sake of its use or its place. (Taz, subsection 2) And I wonder at this, for if so, the muktzeh status should be completely nullified after it is extinguished, and why only for the sake of its use or its place? Rather, certainly here everyone agrees that it does not require the entire Shabbat, for the reason we wrote in section 2. (And behold, the one who permits is the Mordechai at the end of [chapter] Kirah, and he permitted there even regarding muktzeh due to monetary loss for the sake of its use or its place, see there, for he holds that as long as it is a vessel—it is permitted for the sake of its use or its place, and he also permits regarding a lamp. And it appears that even at the time of lighting it is permitted according to his opinion, but we do not rule accordingly. And also the Shelah in his explanation there brought that the Maharshal took issue with him, see there, and if so, his reason is simple, and therefore the Beit Yosef rejected it from the halacha, and examine this well.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: "There are those who say that one who is an istanis and the lamp is repulsive to him—it is permitted to remove it, for it is to him like a graf shel re'i, and the one who is stringent has not lost," thus far his words. And it is not understood, for certainly the one who is stringent loses. And they wrote that it is a printing error, and thus it should say: "and the one who is stringent shall be stringent, and the one who is lenient has not lost," (Bach and Taz and Magen Avraham subsection 3). And there is one who wrote that the one who is stringent has not lost from the mitzvah of oneg Shabbat. (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 7). But the essence of the matter is perplexing, for if so, regarding all muktzeh due to repulsiveness, let us say that it is like a graf shel re'i, yet in the Gemara there is a dispute regarding muktzeh due to repulsiveness, and regarding graf shel re'i no person ever disagreed. And should you say that the dispute is when the muktzeh is not in his place of sitting, for in the Mishnah we move a new lamp but not an old one, as the prohibition is because of muktzeh due to repulsiveness, (according to the commentary of Rashi 44a), and the lamp is on the table, and also the Shas and the poskekim did not happen to say in any place that repulsiveness is like a graf shel re'i. And so too one cannot say that an istanis is different, for if so, you have placed the law of each and every individual in his own hand; today this one will say he is an istanis regarding this muktzeh, and tomorrow he will say so regarding another muktzeh, and several types of muktzeh will be nullified, and also why was this not mentioned in any place? (And this is the intention of the Taz in subsection 3, and in vain did the Tosefet Shabbat impugn him). And certainly regarding anything repulsive, it is not relevant to say "graf shel re'i" except for what the sages said, for if not so, there is no limit to the matter as I have written. Furthermore, regarding graf shel re'i which the sages permitted—they did not distinguish between an istanis and one who is not an istanis. Furthermore, in the Gemara (47a) where Abaye wanted to say that ash in a coal-pan is like a graf shel re'i, Rava challenged him: a graf shel re'i is repulsive and this is not repulsive, see there, and the lamp is no better than ash. And from there it is clear that a graf shel re'i is a thing that is repulsive to every person, like excrement and the like. (See the Bach, for it was obvious to him that it is permitted to every person, even one who is not an istanis, for it is certainly like a graf shel re'i, see there, and it requires great study).

And also in the source of the law in the Mordechai at the beginning of Beitzah, it appears like our words, and this is his wording there: "And if so, a lamp that was lit on Shabbat—it is forbidden to move it. And there are those who permit it, as it is like a graf shel re'i, and this is not correct, for all the fools will say that they are of sensitive temperament, and it is only permitted for one who is an istanis, and one who is stringent has lost nothing." Thus far his words. And it is not understood, for still all the fools will say they are istanisim. And it appears to me that in truth this is its explanation, that he rejects the words of those who permit from the reason that everyone will say so, and in truth it is only permitted for one who is an istanis by his nature, and who can decide this in a matter of prohibition. Therefore, one should be stringent for everyone, and one who is stringent—even one who is an istanis—has lost nothing against the rest of people who are forbidden by the law (so it appears in my humble opinion).

The Ramban and the Rashba, of blessed memory, ruled that a condition is effective for a lamp that was lit on Shabbat, since it is destined to be extinguished. And he should make the condition while it is still day that he does not withdraw from it, so that when it is extinguished it will be permitted to move it (Maggid Mishneh chapter 25, halacha 10). And there are those who questioned this permission, for behold, against his will during bein hashemashot he withdraws from this while it is burning, and against his will "since it was set aside during bein hashemashot, it is set aside for the entire day." (Rivash siman 93). And this is not comparable to that which is found in Beitzah (30b) regarding the decorations of a sukkah, where when he says: "I do not separate from them during the entire bein hashemashot" - it is not muktzeh, for there even during bein hashemashot he does not separate from them, which is not the case here, where against his will he is separated from it during bein hashemashot. Nevertheless, one can say that since in the essence of the lamp there is no muktzeh except because it is a base for the flame - therefore the condition is effective for the lamp for when it is extinguished (Beit Yosef in the name of the Tashbetz) since it is its way to be extinguished. (See Magen Avraham subsection 6 who challenged the Tashbetz, and in truth the Tashbetz also intended this, and two things are required: that the muktzeh does not depend on it but rather it is a base for the muktzeh, and also that the muktzeh will necessarily be removed from it. Therefore, regarding every base we do not say so, and likewise not regarding the essence of the muktzeh, unless he does not separate even during bein hashemashot as with the decorations of a sukkah, and therefore a condition is not effective for a rickety sukkah in siman 518, and the opinion of the Magen Avraham is hidden from me and it requires further study and delve into it.)

For the law, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 4 to permit it, and this is his wording: "If he made a condition regarding this lamp that he may move it once it is extinguished—it is permitted to move it after it is extinguished." Thus far his words. And he explained his words in his great book, that since this involves a rabbinic prohibition, and the Ramban and the Rashba ruled to be lenient—we listen to them, and also the Rivash did not have the heart to reject their words; see there. Nevertheless, our teacher, the Rema, wrote: There are those who say that a condition is not effective, and such is the custom in these lands. Thus far his words. For he maintains that since during bein hashemashot he is forced to be separated from this—a condition is not effective. And even according to those who maintain in siman 518 that even regarding a shaky sukkah a condition is effective for the wood of the sukkah—it is also not comparable, for there the sukkah was made beforehand, and now during bein hashemashot he sits and expects when it will fall. This is not the case with a lamp, for the essence of its muktzeh status is during bein hashemashot, and how shall the condition be effective, for he actively pushed away the lamp during bein hashemashot so that it would be a base for the flame for the needs of Shabbat, as the Tosafot wrote. (44a, end of the heading starting with "She-ba-ner", and see Magen Avraham sub-section 7).

And he wrote further that it is customary to move it by means of a non-Jew, and there is no prohibition of instructing a non-Jew in this, since the custom is such—it is as if he stipulated from the outset and it is permitted. Thus far his words. And as for why he required this reason, when he already ruled in siman 276 that moving it by means of a non-Jew is permitted, it is different there because the non-Jew also needs this (as the Magen Avraham wrote there in subsection 11), and as we explained there in section 16. And even according to what we wrote there in section 17 in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, that it is permitted even for the need of the Israelite himself—this is because the Israelite is capable of doing it himself by means of moving from the side, as is written there, and this is when the Israelite needs it for the use of the object itself, for then it is permitted by moving from the side. But here the permission is even if he does not need it for the use of the object itself, but rather that he moves it to hide it in a concealed place so that they do not steal it, and in such a case it is forbidden even by moving from the side, as is written in siman 311, see there, and consequently it is also forbidden to tell a non-Jew. Therefore we required the reason that it is as if he stipulated from the outset, and in this case a stipulation is effective even according to those who prohibit. (See Magen Avraham subsection 9 who wrote this on the words of our teacher, the Rema, but our teacher, the Rema, only permitted it because the non-Jew also needs it as he himself wrote there in subsection 11; however, according to the words of Rabbeinu Tam it works well, and delve into it.)

In siman 311 it will be explained that a base for a forbidden item and a permitted item is permitted to be moved. Based on this, there are those who err by placing bread on a lamp on Shabbat in order to move it, and this is a complete error, for the base for the forbidden and the permitted must exist from while it is still day. And even though regarding a corpse we say: "one places a loaf of bread or a child upon it and moves it," as written in siman 311, in truth the Sages said (142b) that they only permitted a loaf or a child for a corpse alone when it is lying in the sun, due to human dignity so that it does not decompose. But not for other muktzeh, for regarding other forms of muktzeh, since during bein hashemashot it became a base for the forbidden item alone—it does not leave its forbidden status, and what will it grant or what will it add if they add a permitted item upon it on Shabbat, for the primary status of the base is established during bein hashemashot.

Therefore, if while it was still day one placed the bread upon the lamp—there is room to permit it. However, even regarding this there is reason to doubt, for we require in any event that the permitted item possess importance at least equal to the forbidden item, for if not, it is nullified to the forbidden item, and this is proven in the Gemara (47a), see there. And regarding the oil and the flame that provide light on the night of Shabbat—the bread has no importance relative to them, since one needs them now, and if so, the primary status of the base is for the forbidden item; therefore, one should not rely on this permission. Nevertheless, one could say that the bread is effective, for this acts as if there were a condition in the matter, as this itself is as if one spoke and said that he does not remove his mind from it during twilight, which is permitted according to the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 9. And even according to our teacher, the Rema, there, who forbids even with a condition—nonetheless, to this one should also join the status of the base (and this is the intent of the Magen Avraham, subsection 5, see there), for in truth this reasoning—that the primary status of the base is for the oil and the flame because one needs them now—is not so clear, for if there is merely importance in the bread, what does it matter to us that one needs the oil and the flame now. And in the Gemara there it implies that it depends only on the essence of the importance, and not on the time, see there. (And what the Magen Avraham wrote there, bringing proof from Rashi 47a, s.v. 'to the forbidden item,' that Rabbi Shimon admits that the vessel is secondary to the flame, see there, I did not understand, for certainly it is so, as there there is no permitted item, for the oil is also secondary to the flame as the Tosafot wrote there in s.v. 'Leave it,' see there, and this is not relevant to the bread.)

A lamp that was lit on Shabbat for a woman in childbirth or for a sick person, and the woman gave birth or the sick person recovered—it is permitted to move it after it is extinguished, for this is not called a rejection by hand, since it was lit with permission, and furthermore, there is no muktzeh for half a Shabbat, as was written in section 3. Therefore, even one who lights the lamp on Shabbat inadvertently—it is permitted to move it after it was extinguished, and the same law applies to one who does so intentionally, since the reason is as was written, except that in the case of an intentional act it is impossible for an Israelite to do so. However, in the case of one who lights for a woman in childbirth or for a sick person before twilight—it becomes muktzeh for the entire Shabbat. Even though muktzeh does not apply to them, since it is permitted for their sake to light even on Shabbat, nevertheless, since they are lit during twilight—it was set aside for the entire day, for now that there is a lamp—it is forbidden to light for their sake (it seems to me).

And a lamp that was not lit on that Shabbat—it is permitted to move it, and even if it is of earthenware which is repulsive—it is permitted to move it for the use of its body or its place, (Magen Avraham subsection 12) according to the law of a vessel whose primary use is for a prohibited purpose, as I have written in siman 308. And even if it is of naphtha which is malodorous—it is permitted, for we hold that muktzeh due to repulsiveness is permitted, as I have written there. And we have already written at the beginning of the siman that all this is not relevant to our lamps; see there. And a menorah, whether large or small, if it is made of segments that are fashioned piece by piece—one may not move it, for we fear perhaps it will fall and come apart and he will reassemble it, and he will be found making a vessel on Shabbat. And this has no connection to that which we hold that "there is no building in vessels," for in the making of a vessel anew—all agree that there is building, as I have written in siman 314; see there. And even if it is not made of segments, but it has grooves around it and resembles one made of segments—it is prohibited to move it, for we decree because of those who see, lest they say it is made of segments and they will come to permit one of segments, and this is close to coming to a desecration of Shabbat, and therefore the sages did not differentiate. And vessels that are not prone to coming apart when they fall—it is permitted to move them. And so too even one of segments, if they are prone to being loose—they are permitted to be moved, and even if it fell—it is permitted to return its segments, as I have written in siman 313; see there.