Q&A: Candles
Candles
Question
Hello Rabbi, I’m currently trying to study the topic of candles on the Sabbath, and I have several questions, with your permission.
From what I understand, there are several decrees regarding candles on the Sabbath. These are basically general decrees about labor happening on its own when there is serious concern about Sabbath violation, and not necessarily specifically connected to the commandment of the Sabbath candle, since the decrees apply to any candle you light for any reason, anywhere.
From what I’ve learned so far:
1. It is forbidden to light a candle that gives off a pleasant fragrance (lest one make use of it).
2. It is forbidden to light a candle that gives off a bad smell (lest one leave).
3. It is forbidden to light a candle whose fuel is not drawn properly after the wick (lest one tilt it).
4. It is forbidden to light a candle whose wick does not draw the fuel properly (lest one tilt it).
That is what I’ve learned so far. I know there are several other decrees connected to impurity (I haven’t gotten there yet) and to danger (I didn’t understand the connection to the Sabbath, since in any case it is always forbidden to light them, and that is indeed what Maimonides says).
My first question is about a candle that gives off a bad smell: according to most halakhic decisors this is forbidden, unlike the opinion of the Sages, and I want to ask why the Sages actually permitted it. And the more important question: why is a decree needed here at all, since seemingly in any case it would be forbidden to light a candle that gives off a bad smell on the Sabbath because of Sabbath enjoyment?
My second question is about mixtures: as I understand it, it is forbidden to mix a "fit" wick or oil with an unfit wick or oil. If we follow Rashi, then as I understand it, even a fit wick on top of an unfit wick, when your intention is only reinforcement as long as it burns, would be forbidden, unlike the view of the Arukh and all the major authorities. But then the Talmud raises the case of melted fat and dissolved fish innards, where in such a state, since they are drawn on their own—not when they are not, meaning not melted and not dissolved—it would be permitted to mix them with fit oil and light them, because we do not make three decrees. So I’m trying to formulate a principled definition of the nature of their first decree, and I can’t come up with one. Is it that a substance which in one state is drawn well / draws well, and in another state is not drawn well / does not draw well, is forbidden? Is it connected to how commonly they are used, and that is why they were prohibited? Is it connected to how easily they move from one state to the other? Seemingly one could say about almost any substance that in one state it would not be good, and only after some process it would become good—so what is unique specifically about these?
Answer
1. A candle that gives off a bad smell—the discussion is in the laws of the Sabbath candle and not in the laws of Sabbath enjoyment. Even if from the standpoint of Sabbath enjoyment it is forbidden, one can still discuss whether there is also a prohibition here under the laws of the Sabbath candle. It is possible that if you lit it, you violated Sabbath enjoyment, but still fulfilled your obligation of the Sabbath candle. Beyond that, if you leave the area there will no longer be a problem of Sabbath enjoyment. Why do the Sages permit it? Apparently they were not concerned that one would leave, or in their view the concern is not strong enough to prohibit it.
2. I didn’t understand the question.
Discussion on Answer
Indeed.
Apparently that situation is common. As is well known, we do not make decrees about something uncommon.
If so, can one say that in any case it is not an ideal situation to light a candle that gives off a bad smell even according to the Sages, because of Sabbath enjoyment?
Regarding the question of mixtures: melted fat and dissolved fish innards are drawn well, and ideally they would have been permitted, except that the Sages decreed lest one also light them when they are not melted and not dissolved. And I’m trying to arrive at an essential definition of that decree. Should one say that a substance which in one state is drawn well and in another state is not drawn well gives rise to a concern that it may also be lit in the state in which it is not drawn well? How can such a definition work, since every substance in one state will be unsuitable and in another state will be suitable—even olive oil and chopped olives, for example. In what way are fat and fish innards different, such that they specifically were included in the decree?