Candles
Hello, Honorable Rabbi, I am currently trying to study the subject of candles on Shabbat and I have a few questions for you.
As I understand it, there are several decrees regarding candles on Shabbat (these are actually general decrees for work that is done spontaneously when there is a serious concern about harming Shabbat, and not necessarily related to the mitzvah of lighting a Shabbat candle, as the decrees apply to any candle you light for any reason, anywhere).
From what I have learned so far:
1. It is forbidden to light a candle that gives off a good smell (its name will suffice)
2. It is forbidden to light a candle that emits a bad odor (where it came from)
3. It is forbidden to light a candle whose combustible material does not follow the wick well (its name is ita).
4. It is forbidden to light a candle whose wick does not draw the burning material well (its name is ita).
This is what I have learned so far, I know that there are several more decrees related to impurity (I haven’t gotten to them) and danger (I didn’t understand the context for Shabbat, since it is forbidden to light anything on them anyway, and that is what the Rambam really says)
My first question is about a candle that emits a bad smell. According to most rabbis, this would be prohibited, contrary to the wisdom of the Sages. And I want to ask why the Sages actually permitted it? And the more important question is why is there a ruling here at all, since seemingly in any case it would be prohibited to light a candle that emits a bad smell on Shabbat because of Shabbat pleasure?
My second question is about mixing: From my understanding, it would be forbidden to mix a “kosher” wick or oil with a non-kosher wick or oil (if we go by the opinion of Rashi, as I understand it, a kosher wick on a non-kosher wick when your intention is only to strengthen it as long as it burns, this would be forbidden, contrary to the opinion of the editor and all the pillars of the teaching, in fact). But then the Gemara states that in the matter of milk, your essence and fish guts, which are reduced in such a state that they are naturally attracted (not in a state where they are not, i.e. neither melted nor reduced), it would be permissible to mix them with kosher oil and light them because they do not make 3 rulings. Now I am actually trying to give a fundamental definition of the essence of their first ruling and I am unable to give one (a substance that in a certain state is attracted/attracted and in another state is not attracted/not attracted will be forbidden? Is this related to the frequency of their use, which is why they were prohibited? Is it related to the ease of their transition between states? It seems that it is possible to say about almost any substance that in a certain state it will not be good and only after a certain action is it It would be good, so what is so special about them?)
1. A candle that emits a bad smell, the discussion is in the laws of the Sabbath candle and not in the laws of the Sabbath pleasure. Even if from the perspective of the Sabbath pleasure, this is prohibited, it is still necessary to discuss whether there is also a political prohibition of the Sabbath candle. It is possible that if you lit it, you violated the Sabbath pleasure but you fulfilled the obligation of the Sabbath candle. Beyond that, if you leave there, there will be no problem of the Sabbath pleasure. Why do the Sages permit it? Apparently they were not afraid that you would leave, or they believe that the fear is not enough to prohibit it.
2. I didn’t understand the question.
So, can we say that in any case, this is not a situation where, in the first place, lighting a candle that emits a bad odor, even according to the Sages, due to the pleasure of Shabbat?
Regarding the question of the mixing: Melted milk and fish guts that have been melted are well absorbed, and from the beginning, those were permitted, which the Sages ruled that it would light even in a state where they are neither melted nor melted. And I actually want to reach a substantive definition of this ruling. Should we say that a substance in a certain state is absorbed and in another state it is not absorbed, and there is a fear that it will light even in a state where it is not absorbed? How is such a definition possible, since every substance in a certain state will be bad and in another state it will be good, (even olive oil and chopped olives, for example) How are the milk and fish guts that they ruled about different?
Indeed.
Apparently that situation is common. As we know, we don't judge by the unusual.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
