Siman 502

The sages taught in the Mishnah (33a): One may not produce fire, neither from wood, nor from stones, nor from earth, nor from tiles, nor from water. And this is the explanation: for when wood and stones are rubbed much against each other—fire will emerge from them. "And from earth," Rashi explained: hard ground when it is dug—it produces fire, like our gargishta from its place of excavation. And the Ran explained: cattle or sheep dung is hidden in the earth, and when they rot—fire emerges from them. "And from tiles"—this refers to when they are white-hot. "And from water," Rashi explained: one places water in a vessel of white glass, and places it in the sun when the sun is very hot, and the glass produces a flame, and they bring tow and touch it to the glass and it burns. Thus far his words.

The reason for the prohibition is because it is considered nolad (Rashi and Ran), and so wrote the Ra'avad at the beginning of the fourth chapter. However, the Rambam wrote there: One may not produce fire, neither from wood, nor from stones, nor from metals, such as by rubbing them against one another or striking them against one another until fire emerges. And similarly, extremely refined naphtha which is like water, which one shakes until it ignites, or a clear hard vessel, or glass filled with water that one places opposite the sun until its brilliance reflects onto flax or the like and it ignites—all this and the like is forbidden on Yom Tov. For it was only permitted on Yom Tov to kindle from an existing fire, but to bring fire into existence is forbidden, as it was possible to bring it into existence from the eve of the festival. Thus far his words. And the matter is very puzzling, for in the Gemara there they said explicitly: What is the reason? Because he is creating (molid) on Yom Tov. Why then did he see fit to give a reason of his own? For he is the one who is more stringent regarding muktzeh on Yom Tov than on Shabbat, as I wrote in siman 495, and certainly regarding nolad. Why was the reason of the Shas not sufficient for him?

And it appears, in my humble opinion, that certainly he also maintains the reason is because of nolad. However, he had a difficulty: how is it possible to forbid the extraction of fire on Yom Tov, for since the Torah permitted baking and cooking on Yom Tov, and there is no cooking or baking without fire, if so, then the Torah must have necessarily permitted making fire on Yom Tov? And to this he says that this is not a necessity, for it permitted from existing fire, such as from a coal or from a lamp and the like, but not to bring into existence new fire. And this is like the preparations for food [machshirei ochel nefesh]: that which one is able to do on the eve of Yom Tov is forbidden on Yom Tov by Torah law. And even if this is like food itself [ochel nefesh]—nevertheless, it is forbidden by rabbinic law in a case where it was possible on the eve of Yom Tov. And while it is true that regarding kindling we say "mitoch," as I have written there—this is all from existing fire. But from fire that is not existing—it is forbidden because of nolad (so it appears in my humble opinion).

The Maggid Mishneh explained that regarding fire, it is impossible to forbid it due to the prohibition of nolad. This is his wording: For this is not like an egg that was laid, which is forbidden because it is not a thing fit for itself, but rather to cook and to bake, and it seems that if one extracted it, it is permitted to use it; and they only forbade it because he should not have brought it into existence, since it was possible for him from the eve of the holiday. Thus far his words. And according to his words, that which the Gemara said: What is the reason? Because he brings it into existence on the holiday—the intention is not because of the prohibition of nolad, but rather because he should not have brought it into existence on the holiday. However, the essence of his words is puzzling: for how is it possible to say that anything that is not in the food itself is not subject to nolad? Behold, the prohibition of shards of vessels is due to the reason of nolad. Similarly, the prohibition to kindle with pits is due to nolad (Lechem Mishneh), as I wrote in siman 501. And it must be said that his intention was not that specifically food is subject to nolad, but rather any physical thing. But fire, which has no substance at all, just as it is not subject to the prohibition of hotza'ah on Shabbat, or the Torah prohibition of benefit from consecrated property, and similarly many things that do not apply to a flame (Beitzah 39a) because it is a thing that has no substance, and it is not relevant for a prohibition to take effect upon it. And even the prohibition of idolatry, which is stringent—does not apply to a flame (ibid.). If so, how is it relevant for the prohibition of nolad to take effect upon a flame? Rather, it is certainly according to the reason of the Rambam. And in truth, it is a great reasoning. (And the Taz, subsection 1, became entangled in the words of the Rambam and the Maggid Mishneh, and they explained that their intention was due to the reason of machshirin. And he wondered at the Maggid Mishneh who permitted it after the fact, and ruled that even after the fact it is forbidden, see there. But according to what I wrote regarding his intention—his words are clear and befitting him. And so it is proper to instruct.)

We further learned in the Mishnah (32a): One may not make charcoal on Yom Tov, which means taking wood and igniting it until it becomes charcoal, and afterwards extinguishing it. Rashi explained: because it is like a tool for goldsmiths. The Ran explained: because it is extinguishing, for in the making of charcoal the fire is extinguished (Levush). And specifically making charcoal, but to ignite cold charcoal—it is obvious that it is permitted. And it was taught in a Baraita (34a): One may not blow with a bellows, as it appears like a craftsman performing labor (Rashi). But one may blow with a tube. The Tur wrote that the Rosh permitted a householder's bellows which is small, as it is not similar to the labor of a craftsman, nor to blacksmiths, nor to goldsmiths. The Tur wrote that nevertheless one should not be lenient, since they only permitted a tube—it implies that every bellows is forbidden. In the Tosafot there they rejected this, for there is no proof, as it only deals with that of a craftsman, and they wrote that the world is accustomed to permit it by reversing it from top to bottom. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote similarly in section 1. And among us, a householder's bellows is not common at all. And that which we blow among us by means of tying stiff feathers—it is certainly permitted like a tube. And for the most part we blow by mouth to ignite the coals. And there is no prohibition of nolad in this, that we bring forth a flame from within a burning coal, for the flame is already in it, but rather through the blowing we bring it out.

And know that for about two generations now we have been using on a weekday the extraction of light by means of sulfur sticks, which have on their tips the "phosphor," in which much heat is hidden, and when one rubs it against something—fire immediately emerges, and takes hold of the thin wood that they call "shirnitzke" or "svebele." And it is a known matter that on Yom Tov—it is forbidden because of nolad. And we are all careful in this. However, in our youth the permission spread to touch it to a burning coal, and it immediately ignites. And I did not know the reason for the permission—for after all, one is extracting fire from the sulfur! And I heard in my youth that a certain great man permitted this, and his reason was because the fire is not from the sulfur, but rather it extracts the fire from the coal, for because it has much of the element of fire—it draws the flame to itself from the coal. And this matter requires proof, for perhaps the coal awakens the power of fire that is in the sulfur. And perhaps since in any case the power of the flame that is in the coal also assists it—this is not like nolad. And especially according to the reasoning of the Rambam, who did not permit except from fire that is present as I wrote in section 2—behold, this fire that is in the coal is present. Nevertheless, in any case, the world has practiced permission in this. (And consequently the sulfur sticks are not muktzeh, since they are fit to be placed near the coal.)

It is permitted to cover the fire with a vessel or with prepared earth, if one does not extinguish it at the time of the action. And even if it happened to be extinguished—it is a "davar she'eino mitkavein," and also a "melakhah she'einah tzerikhah legufah" (Magen Avraham, subsection 5, in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo). And specifically for the needs of this day, but if one does this for the needs of the second day of Yom Tov, such as if one covers it in the morning for the needs of the evening—it is forbidden, for one may not do anything from the first day of Yom Tov for the second day of Yom Tov, and certainly on the second day of Yom Tov for the needs of the evening which is a weekday, as it is certainly forbidden. And if one increases the covering until a portion of it is certainly extinguished—it is forbidden even for the needs of the day, for extinguishing was not permitted on Yom Tov. And the specific laws of extinguishing will be explained in siman 514 with the help of Heaven.

A bundle of wood that was lit in a bonfire, any wood that the fire has not caught—it is permitted to pull it out, and this is not considered extinguishing since the fire has not yet caught it. And it is not similar to the oil in a lamp, from which it is forbidden to make use of because of extinguishing, as I wrote in siman 514, for the oil is entirely a single connection, but the pieces of wood are separate from one another. And know that that which we wrote, "A bundle of wood..."—this is the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of the fourth chapter. And the Tur wrote in this wording: A bonfire made of thin wood—it is permitted to remove from them as long as the fire has not caught them. Thus far his words, meaning: those that the fire has not caught. And this is also according to the words of the Rambam.

There is one who wishes to infer from the wording of the Rambam, who wrote "a bundle," that when they are bound together—even those upon which the fire has taken hold may be removed. And the Tur, who did not mention "a bundle," and nevertheless only permitted those upon which the fire has not taken hold—this refers to thin wood, but with thick wood there is no prohibition except in a bundle (Magen Avraham subsection 10). And this is not understandable at all. For that which the fire has taken hold of—how can it be permitted to remove it? And what does it matter to me if it is a large piece of wood, or a small one, or if it is in a bundle, or not in a bundle? And in the Rokeach it is written explicitly: Wood that is in the fire—one may not remove it, for it is like extinguishing. And he did not distinguish between one piece of wood and another. And the Rambam, who wrote "a bundle"—his intention is not specifically that they are bound together, but rather that they are placed together as if they were bound. For if not so, there is no novelty at all in the fact that it is permitted to take those upon which the fire has not taken hold. And the Tur, who wrote "from thin wood"—his intention is also thus, for typically thin wood is stuck together. And for the halacha, it is clear that any wood upon which the fire has taken hold—it is forbidden to remove it (and this is also the intention of the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 13, see there).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: And it is permitted to take a burning piece of wood from one side of a bonfire and place it on another side, since he does not intend to extinguish. Thus far his words, and it appears to me that this is the explanation: for it is the way that when one takes a burning piece of wood—it is not extinguished immediately, but rather after a short time. Therefore, to remove it entirely is forbidden, for this is extinguishing, as it will be extinguished immediately. This is not the case when he takes it from this side to that side—it will not be extinguished. And even if perhaps it is possible that it will be extinguished—it is a case of "davar she'ein mitkaven," and this is not a "pesik reisha." And it is not similar to the law explained below in siman 514, that it is forbidden to take a wick from a burning lamp to place it in another lamp, see there, because the wick is extinguished immediately. Therefore, they were precise there to say that behold, when he removes it, he immediately extinguishes, see there. (And the Taz there in subsection 5 raised a difficulty from here, and wrote that they are two opinions, see there. And it is not so. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

There are those who wrote that it is permitted to take a brand from the bonfire and use it for light at night, for it is only a gram of extinguishing and he does not intend for that, and sometimes it does not extinguish. However, the world is accustomed to be careful, and it is correct (Beit Yosef, and Taz, and Magen Avraham in the name of Hagahot Maimoniyot and the Mordechai). And certainly it appears so explicitly from what has been explained, that specifically from this side to that side or to another bonfire (Taz subsection 3) it is permitted, but not to remove it entirely (Magen Avraham ibid.). And in my humble opinion there is no dispute here, for certainly a somewhat thick piece of wood—we see with our senses that when one removes it, it will not extinguish immediately. But over the course of many moments it will extinguish, and with such it is certainly forbidden to take for light. However, there are very thin and somewhat wide pieces of wood called "kin," and they, when one lights them—they burn until their end. And those are certainly permitted, and it was regarding these that the permitters intended. And so one should instruct.

It is a known matter that the reason it is permitted to handle wood on Yom Tov is because they are fit for fuel. According to this, moist wood that is not fit for fuel is forbidden to be handled, as they are muktzeh. This is what we learned in the Mishnah (32b): One may not support a pot with a log, nor a door. That is to say: to support a pot so that it does not fall, or a door, with a moist log is forbidden, for even one who does not hold of muktzeh admits regarding wood and stones, as I wrote in siman 308. However, dry wood that is fit for fuel is permitted to be used for all one's needs, since it is not muktzeh. Thus ruled the Tur, see there.

But the Rambam wrote in the fourth chapter: One may not support a pot... for they only permitted the handling of wood on Yom Tov for the purpose of kindling alone. Thus far his words, and so it is in the Rif there, and so is the wording of the Baraita in the Gemara (33a). And the reasoning is puzzling: for since it is fit for a use on Yom Tov, how can we say of it that it is muktzeh? And from the wording of the Baraita there is no proof, for there they said because wood was only given for kindling. And this is its explanation: that since they were only given for kindling, it follows that moist wood which is not fit for kindling is forbidden to be handled. And regarding the reasoning of the Rif and the Rambam, it seems to me that the sages therefore forbade the handling of wood for purposes other than kindling: for if not so, they would handle all bundles and all wood for all uses, even those that are not fit for kindling. For a matter that is handed over to the entire masses of Israel – it is impossible to explain to everyone that this wood is permitted and this one is forbidden. And perforce they fenced the way such that only for kindling is it permitted to be handled, and not for any other thing.

It appears to me that the dispute of the Tur with the Rambam depends on the sugya of the Gemara there (33a), which says there: Regarding a branch, Rav Nachman forbade and Rav Sheshet permitted. That is to say: a tree branch that is sharp like a thorn, and is fit to be stuck into a roast like a type of spit and to roast with it (Rashi). And there are two versions there in the Gemara: the first is that in a moist state even Rav Sheshet forbids, and they disagree regarding a dry state. And the second version is that in a dry state even Rav Nachman permits, and they disagree regarding a moist state. And the reason of the one who permits: since it is fit for a large fire. The Gemara concludes that the halakha is that dry is permitted and moist is forbidden, see there. And the Tur holds that according to the conclusion—in all uses it is so, that in a moist state it is forbidden and in a dry state it is permitted. And the Rambam holds that even in a dry state they only permitted making it into a type of spit to roast with it, as this pertains to ochel nefesh, and so he ruled in the second chapter, see there. But other things they did not permit. And the proof is from the fact that they only disagreed regarding this—infer from this that for another use everyone agrees that even dry is forbidden. And the Tur holds that this is not a precise inference, for the Gemara cited a thing that was common for them on Yom Tov, such as making a spit to roast. And the same law applies to other things.

The words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in this matter are not understood at all. For our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3 wrote: One may not support a pot, nor a door, with a wood splinter. Thus far his words, and he left the matter unspecified and did not explain at all if it is a moist or dry splinter. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: But it is permitted to roast with it, and all the more so it is permitted to kindle with it along with other wood, even though it is not fit to kindle on its own. Thus far his words. And behold, from that which he wrote "but it is permitted to roast with it" – it is obvious that this is regarding dry wood, for regarding moist wood the conclusion of the Gemara is to forbid, as I have written, and this is according to the method of the Rambam. And if so, how did he write that it is permitted to kindle with it along with other wood even though it is not fit on its own, which refers to moist wood because it is fit for a large fire? And he contradicts himself. Furthermore: for according to the conclusion of the Shas, this reasoning of "since it is fit for a large fire" was rejected. However, his intention is clear according to what the Ran wrote there, that even according to the conclusion it is permitted to place the moist wood into a large fire. Nevertheless, to suspend it for roasting is forbidden, since it is not fit for kindling on its own, see there. And the measure of his words is as follows: but it is permitted to roast with it in the case of dry wood, and all the more so it is permitted to kindle with it in the case of moist wood along with other wood. For this is considered more lenient for him, since according to the method of the Rambam even dry wood is forbidden for any use, and despite all this they permitted it for roasting, and all the more so for the primary kindling when it is fit with other wood. (And know that Rashi wrote there that this which the Shas ruled that moist wood is forbidden – this is according to the one who holds of muktzeh. But for us, as we hold like Rav Sheshet – it is permitted. And the Tosafot rejected this, for even according to Rav Sheshet it is forbidden when they are not fit for kindling. And it seems to me regarding their intention that this is like stones and pebbles. And the Rosh in the name of our teacher Tam explained that it is a decree of Yom Tov on account of Shabbat. And also this which says "wood was only given for kindling" – is also from this same reasoning, see there.)

The Tur wrote: One may not cook in new earthenware pots unless he first boiled them on the eve of the Yom Tov, because the first cooking strengthens them, and that is the completion of their preparation. Thus far his words. And there are those who disagree, for through cooking with food, the pot is not strengthened (Tosafot 34a, starting with "Haka"). However, besides this, the poskim wrote that this applies to their pots, which were not finished completely by the potter. But ours are finished completely and do not require strengthening at all (Beit Yosef in the name of the Ra'avyah and Rabbeinu Yerucham). And this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4, and this is his wording: For us, it is permitted to cook in new pots on Yom Tov. Thus far his words, and the reason is as I have written. Nevertheless, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who forbid it, and such is the custom unless it is a case of pressing need. Therefore, they are accustomed when buying new pots for Pesach that they cook in them before Yom Tov. Thus far his words. And it is not specifically on Pesach, but rather because on Pesach it is necessary to buy new ones due to the prohibition of chametz. But actually, on every Yom Tov it is so. And there is one who distinguishes between glazed earthenware, for those do not require strengthening as they have already been strengthened, and those that are not glazed require strengthening (Magen Avraham, subsection 14). However, it is certain that if he did not cook in them before Yom Tov, and now he has no other pot, it is permitted to cook in it (Taz, subsection 5, and see Magen Avraham, subsection 15). And our women—there are those who are careful not to cook in a new earthenware pot on Yom Tov.

Know that there are matters on Yom Tov regarding which the sages warned that one should be careful in performing these actions so as not to perform them like a tent, which constitutes building. And even though it is temporary building, nevertheless this too is forbidden on Yom Tov just as on Shabbat, and we explained them above in siman 314 and siman 315. And these are they: when making a bonfire, it is common to place many pieces of wood arranged one upon the other on four sides, and wood on top of them like a roof, and it is forbidden to do so on Yom Tov because it appears like building. Rather, he either places the wood in a jumble, or arranges it with a change. How so? He holds a piece of wood above, and another beneath it, and beneath the second the third, until it reaches the ground. And similarly when placing a pot on four stones, as was their custom – he should not set the stones and afterwards the pot, but rather he holds the pot and places the stones beneath it. And similarly with their beds, for they would set the legs and place boards on top of them. And on Yom Tov he should not do so if the legs also have walls, but rather he should hold the boards and insert the legs beneath them. And even eggs, when arranging them one on top of the other, row upon row so that they stand like a tower – it is proper not to do so on Yom Tov. Rather, he should perform a change, and begin from the top to the bottom. And even though the definition of a tent is specifically when one needs the space beneath it, as I wrote there – here, in all of them, one needs the space beneath it: with the wood and the pot to place the fire beneath them, and with the bed to place the shoes beneath it, and with the eggs as well when placing fire beneath their space (Tosafot 32b) in order to roast them. And similarly, anything similar to this requires a change.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: And so too a table that has partitions reaching to the ground – requires a change. However, it is permitted to set our table upon its legs, and there is no concern of building in this. And some say that even if it reaches to the ground, as long as one does not require the space beneath it – it is permitted. Thus far his words. And so is the primary ruling, that anything for which one does not require the space beneath it – is not called an ohel, as I have written there. And so wrote the Tur in the name of the Tosafot and the Rashba, see there. And regarding this, that we require the partitions to reach the ground, some say that even within less than three [tefachim] adjacent to the ground it is considered lavud (Beit Yosef). And some say that we do not say lavud to be stringent but only to be lenient. (The Rema in Darkei Moshe, and the Magen Avraham in subsection 9 lengthily proved that we do say lavud to be stringent, see there well.)