Shulchan Arukh · Orach Chayim
In-depth pilpul
The sugya of Shabbat 19b–20a,
the hakira on the flame that rises of itself,
the fears of stoking and of moving the logs,
the machloket over bound reeds and date pits
Subject: Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim, siman 255 · 3 seifim
Talmudic basis: Shabbat 19b–20a · רמב״ם הלכות שבת פ״ג הי״ט–הכ״ב
Edited by: Rav Yossef Haim Samama · DAAT
📑 Table of contents
- Opening the sugya — mishna and baraita, Shabbat 19b–20a
- The hakira on the flame that rises of itself — sign or reality
- Stoking the fire, moving the logs — one gezera, or two?
- The gader of רוב עביו ורוב היקפו — the single log, seif א
- Coals and the turning-away of attention — seif ב
- Scattered against bound — seif ג, and the reverse opinion
- Compared with simanim רנ״ב–רנ״ד — three neighbouring fears of stoking
- When the shiur is measured — the Acharonim's precision
- Modern practical nafka minot — candles, plata, Shabbat oven
📜 The text of the Shulchan Arukh — 3 seifim
The siman has three seifim. The first carries most of the matter: the measure of kindling, the case of the single log, and the reason for the prohibition. Seifim ב and ג are quoted further down, in sections 5 and 6, where they are discussed.
« אין עושין מדורה מעצים סמוך לחשיכה עד שיצית בהם האור בענין שתהא השלהבת עולה מאליה בלי סיוע עצים אחרים ואם הוא עץ יחידי צריך שיאחוז האור ברוב עביו וברוב הקיפו ואם לא הודלקה כל כך אסור ליהנות בה בשבת גזירה שמא יחתה בה ויניד העצים כדי שתעלה השלהבת וכשהודלקה כשיעור יכול להתחמם כנגדה בשבת ולהשתמש לאורה בין אם הוא על גבי קרקע או על גבי המנורה ואפי׳ הוא מדברים שאין עושים מהם פתילה לשבת » (או״ח רנ״ה:א)
The Rama glosses nothing in this siman: all three seifim are the Mechaber alone. The Shulchan Arukh HaRav divides the same matter into four seifim — his heading says so, וּבוֹ ד׳ סְעִיפִים — and that one-step offset is why references to the Admur HaZaken do not carry the same number as the Mechaber's: the coals are his seif ג where the Mechaber makes them his seif ב.
1. Opening the sugya — mishna and baraita, Shabbat 19b–20a
The mishna that closes the first chapter of Shabbat lists what may be started before nightfall and will finish by itself during Shabbat. It ends with fire, and our whole siman comes out of that last line.
Two things are to be read in that ending. First, the distinction between the Temple — the pyre of the beit hamoked, where the fire is made to catch without measure — and the rest of the country, where the fire must have caught in the greater part. Second, Rabbi Yehuda's opinion about coals, which will become seif ב of our siman.
The gemara immediately asks what the greater part means, and the answer splits in two.
The difference is one of kind, not of degree. Rav gives a measure of the thing: the majority of each piece. Shmuel gives a criterion of conduct: that one not come to say “bring wood and let us put it underneath”. Then a baraita comes to support Shmuel, and it is the baraita that supplies the phrase the Shulchan Arukh will keep.
The root of the sugya. The Beit Yosef opens the siman by quoting the mishna — in his version, and referring it to the first chapter of Shabbat —, then the dispute of Rav and Shmuel, then Rav Chiya's baraita. He then treats separately, in a passage of its own, the case of the single log, where Rav Papa's conclusion governs. So there are two distinct questions that the Mechaber's seif א stacks into one sentence: how many logs must have caught in a pyre, and how far the fire must have entered a single log.
« ומאחיזין את האור במדורת בית המוקד ובגבולין כדי שיצית האור ברובן » (בית יוסף סימן רנ״ה)
2. The hakira on the flame that rises of itself — sign or reality
What exactly does the phrase שלהבת עולה מאליה designate?
- First way — realist. It describes a physical state. The test: if the kindling is taken away, does the flame carry on by itself? If so, the flame rises of itself; if not, it does not.
- Second way — as a sign. It is the sign that the kindling is finished and that the man has turned away from it. What counts is not the physics of combustion, but the fact that he has nothing further to do at the fire.
The alternative is not a school invention: it is already in the gemara, between Rav and Shmuel. Rav measures the matter — the majority of each log. Shmuel measures what is left to do — that one need not call for kindling. And Rav Chiya's baraita, which comes to support Shmuel, states the criterion in the very words the Mechaber will take up.
« וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּדְלִיק רֹב הַמְּדוּרָה קֹדֶם חֲשֵׁכָה עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא שַׁלְהֶבֶת עוֹלָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ קֹדֶם הַשַּׁבָּת » (רמב״ם הלכות שבת פ״ג הי״ט)
The Mishna Berura, glossing the Mechaber's words without the help of other wood, reads the phrase on Shmuel's side: what is asked is that he no longer need to call for kindling to make it catch.
« דהיינו שלא יהא צריך לומר הבא עצים דקים ונניח תחתיהן כדי להבעיר » (מ״ב רנ״ה:ג)
What follows is set out as questions. None of the sources of this siman speaks of electricity, and nothing here decides anything.
- Electric lamp, chemical flame. On the first way, if the light maintains itself once the circuit is made, the criterion looks satisfied. On the second, one will first ask whether there was an act of kindling from which the man then turned away.
- Hotplate (plata). On the first way, steady heat resembles a flame that maintains itself. On the second too, since nothing is left to do. The two ways converge here.
- Lamp on a timer. On the first way, the question is which state one looks at, and at what moment. On the second, the turning-away is harder to place: it happened at the setting, not at the kindling.
3. Stoking the fire, moving the logs — one gezera, or two?
The Mechaber names two acts. Are these two distinct fears, or one fear said twice?
- First way — two. To stoke is to act on the embers; to move the logs is to act on the structure of the pyre. Neither the acts nor the objects are the same.
- Second way — one. Both are only two expressions of one thing: intervening in the fire so that it holds. The gezera would bear on the intervention, in whatever form.
« דאל״ה חיישינן שמא יחתה ויניד העצים משתחשך » (מ״ב רנ״ה:ב)
The Admur HaZaken likewise writes the gezera in one stroke, and closes his seif א on the criterion that explains it: once the fire has entered as it should, he will have no need at all to move the log.
« גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְתֶּה בָּהּ בְּשַׁבָּת וְיָנִיד הָעֵצִים כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה הַשַּׁלְהֶבֶת » (שו״ע הרב רנ״ה:א)
מחלוקת. How far does this fear reach once the fire has properly caught? The Mishna Berura reports, in the name of the Taz at siman ער״ה, that one should nevertheless avoid sitting right next to the ends of the brands, lest he touch them to draw them nearer the fire — and it also reports the contrary view of the Eliya Rabba and the Tosefet Shabbat, who do not fear this. The question is left open in the Mishna Berura itself.
« הט״ז בסימן ער״ה כתב דמ״מ יש ליזהר שלא לישב בסמוך אצל זנבות האודים לפי שיש לחוש שמא יגע בהם לקרבם אצל המדורה אבל דעת הא״ר והתו״ש דלא חיישינן לזה » (מ״ב רנ״ה:ז)
4. The gader of רוב עביו ורוב היקפו — the single log, seif א
What are the thickness and the circumference, one relative to the other?
- First way — two cumulative conditions. The majority is needed in each of the two dimensions. Fire that has gone round without entering does not suffice, nor does fire that has entered without going round.
- Second way — two alternative formulations. Either would suffice, the two leshonot saying the same requirement in two ways.
The gemara itself reports both leshonot, and then Rav Papa adds them together — and it is that addition that makes the Mechaber's halakha.
« ואסיק רב פפא הלכך בעינן רוב עביו ורוב היקפו ופירש״י רוב עביו. שיכנס האור בתוך עביו עד רובו: רוב היקפו. מבחוץ » (בית יוסף סימן רנ״ה)
The Taz takes up the same division.
« שיכנס האור בתוך עביו עד רובו. רוב הקיפו מבחוץ » (ט״ז רנ״ה ס״ק א׳)
The Magen Avraham likewise.
« פי׳ מבפנים קרי עוביו ורוב היקפו מבחוץ » (מג״א רנ״ה ס״ק א׳)
The Mishna Berura fuses the two into one sentence, with the words and also that state the cumulation.
« שיכנס האור מבפנים בתוך עביו עד רובו וגם שיתפשט ברוב היקפו מבחוץ » (מ״ב רנ״ה:ד)
The Rambam likewise requires both, by day.
« וְאִם הִדְלִיק עֵץ יְחִידִי צָרִיךְ לְהַדְלִיק רֹב עָבְיוֹ וְרֹב הֶקֵּפוֹ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם » (רמב״ם הלכות שבת פ״ג הי״ט)
The Admur HaZaken writes the two conditions in the reverse order from the Mechaber's — circumference first, thickness second — and he adds what the others left implicit: the reason for the cumulation is that the fire will then rekindle by itself during Shabbat, and he will have no need at all to move the log. The measure is not a quantity for its own sake: it is the guarantee that the gezera of section 3 will have nothing to bite on.
« וְאִם הוּא עֵץ יְחִידִי — צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֶּאֱחוֹז הָאוּר מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם בְּרֹב הֶקֵּפוֹ וּבְרֹב עָבְיוֹ, דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס הָאוּר בְּעֹבִי הָעֵץ עַד רֻבּוֹ, וּמִבַּחוּץ יַקִּיפֶנּוּ גַם כֵּן עַד רֹב הֶקֵּפוֹ, שֶׁאָז יִדָּלֵק מֵאֵלָיו בְּשַׁבָּת, וְלֹא יִצְטָרֵךְ כְּלָל לַהֲנִידוֹ » (שו״ע הרב רנ״ה:א)
For thick logs. It does not suffice that the surface be blackened: the fire must have entered the thickness to the majority, and have gone round on the outside. It is the most demanding condition of the siman.
On the duration required, none of the sources cited here — not the gemara, nor the Rambam, the Beit Yosef, the Taz, the Magen Avraham, the Mishna Berura or the Admur HaZaken — gives a number of minutes. It depends on the wood and on the size of the log, and the criterion to check remains the one in the text: has the fire entered, and has it gone round?
5. Coals and the turning-away of attention — seif ב
The Mechaber gives the reason himself: coals burn and go on. That is a property of the material, not a state of the fire. A minimal catch suffices, because what follows no longer depends on anything a man might want to hasten — and the gezera, which aims at the man and not at the fire, has nothing to take hold of.
If the reason is that clear, why does the Mechaber write it as י״א — “there are those who say” — and not as a plain halakha?
The Beit Yosef says it in so many words, and his answer is a question of how to read the mishna. Rabbi Yehuda, who says for coals, any amount, is he adding to the words of the tana kama, or contradicting him? The Tur and Rabbenu Yeruham read an addition, one the tana kama himself grants. The Rambam, in his commentary on the mishna, writes on the contrary that the halakha is not like Rabbi Yehuda — and in his Hilkhot Shabbat he indeed draws no distinction between coals and logs. It is that divergence which the Mechaber's י״א records.
« ומשמע לרבינו דרבי יהודה אינו חולק על ת״ק אלא מוסיף על דבריו ות״ק מודה לו וכך הם דברי רבינו ירוחם בח״ג » (בית יוסף סימן רנ״ה)
« אבל דברי הרמב״ם בפי׳ המשנה נראה דר׳ יהודה פליג את״ק שכתב ואין הלכה כר׳ יהודה וכ״כ מדבריו בפ״ג ג״כ שלא חילק בין פחמין לעצים » (בית יוסף סימן רנ״ה)
The Admur HaZaken, at his seif ג, reports both opinions and concludes with the general rule for words of the Sages.
« וְיֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין עַל זֶה. וּבְדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמֵּקֵל » (שו״ע הרב רנ״ה:ג)
6. Scattered against bound — seif ג, and the reverse opinion
מחלוקת. The seif ends on three words that overturn everything: ויש אומרים בהיפך. The two opinions are not an invention of the poskim: they are, word for word, Rav Huna and Rav Chisda in the gemara, and each has his reason.
Everything turns on the word mibadran — “they scatter”. Rav Huna reasons from the catching of the fire: scattered reeds catch quickly, a bound sheaf is tight and the fire does not enter it. Rav Chisda reasons the other way, from the scattering: loose, the reeds drift apart, each fails to find its neighbour to burn it and they go out — bound, they stay together. The same physical fact, read from two ends.
« הטעם דכיון שאחז בהן האור קצת מבעוד יום שוב הם דולקין מאליהן אבל כשהם אגודות או בסל שוב אין השלהבת יכולה ליכנס בהן והוא דעת הרי״ף והרמב״ם » (מ״ב רנ״ה:יא)
« ודעת הי״א שהוא דעת הרא״ש והטור הוא להיפוך דכשהם מפוזרות כל אחת מהן לא תמצא את חברתה לבערה והם כבים והולכים הילכך צריכים רוב משא״כ כשהם נאגדים יחד וכן בגרעינין » (מ״ב רנ״ה:יא)
The Rambam gives the reason for the anonymous view in his own words: the fire takes hold in them quickly and he will not need to stoke; once bound, they are like logs.
« מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאֵשׁ נִתְלֵית בָּהֶן בִּמְהֵרָה וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַחְתּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָגַד הַקָּנִים אוֹ הִנִּיחַ הַגַּרְעִינִין בְּחוֹתָלוֹת הֲרֵי הֵן כְּעֵצִים » (רמב״ם הלכות שבת פ״ג הכ״א)
This is not first of all a divergence of reasoning, but of גירסא. The Beit Yosef says so expressly: the Tur's text follows the Rosh's version, whereas on the Rif's version it is the reverse. And he reports a third version, Rashi's, in which the reeds go one way and the date pits the other — which forbids presenting the matter as a simple two-sided stand-off.
« ודברי רבינו בקנים וגרעינין כגירסת הרא״ש דאילו לגירסת הרי״ף הוי איפכא דכשהם מפוזרים א״צ רוב לפי שהם דולקין מאליהם ואם אגד הקנים ונתן הגרעינים בסלים צריכין רוב לפי שאינם נוחים לידלק והוא דעת הרמב״ם בפ״ג » (בית יוסף סימן רנ״ה)
« ולפי גירסת רש״י קנים א״צ רוב אגדן צריכין רוב ובגרעינין הוא איפכא דצריכין רוב ואם נתנם בסלים אינם צריכין רוב » (בית יוסף סימן רנ״ה)
The Rama does not gloss this seif. The Admur HaZaken, at his seif ד, writes the anonymous view alone — bound, the flame that rises of itself is required — with the reason of the Rif and the Rambam, and he does not report the Mechaber's reverse opinion.
« אֲבָל אִם הַקָּנִים הֵם אֲגוּדִים וְהַגַּרְעִינִים הֵם בַּסַּל — צְרִיכִים שֶׁיַּצִּית בָּהֶם הָאוּר כָּל כָּךְ בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁתְּהֵא הַשַּׁלְהֶבֶת עוֹלָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַשַּׁלְהֶבֶת יְכוֹלָה לִכָּנֵס בָּהֶם מֵאֵלֶיהָ » (שו״ע הרב רנ״ה:ד)
7. Compared with simanim רנ״ב–רנ״ד — three neighbouring fears of stoking
| Siman | Where the fear of stoking arises | What would one be hastening? |
|---|---|---|
| רנ״ב | A vat set on the fire, started before Shabbat | A process that is not cooking — dyeing, steeping |
| רנ״ג | A pot left on the kira | The finishing of a dish |
| רנ״ד | A roast by the fire, a loaf in the oven | The roasting of meat, the baking of bread |
| רנ״ה | The fire itself, and the moving of the logs | That the flame hold — nothing else |
In the three neighbouring simanim, what one fears to hasten is a product: the dye, the dish, the bread. The fire there is only a means. In siman רנ״ה there is no product: what one would hasten is the flame itself. That is why the Mechaber names here a second act the other simanim do not name — ויניד העצים, moving the logs — which cooks nothing and serves only to make the flame rise.
8. When the shiur is measured — the Acharonim's precision
The Mechaber writes and when it has been kindled to the measure, without saying when that measure is ascertained. The Acharonim say it, and without ambiguity.
« פי׳ מבעוד יום קודם השבת » (מ״ב רנ״ה:ו)
The Magen Avraham writes the same, more briefly still (מג״א רנ״ה ס״ק ג׳).
From this follows the consequence that surprises, and which is the real chiddush of the passage: what was missing before Shabbat is not made up during Shabbat. If the pyre did not have the measure at the entry of the day, the fact that it afterwards catches entirely, by itself, does not permit benefiting from it. The Mishna Berura refers for this to the end of siman רנ״ד, to the asasiyot and the lupines.
« פי׳ אפילו הודלקה אח״כ לגמרי וכמש״כ בסוף סימן רנ״ד בעססיות ותורמוסין דכל שעבר על דחז״ל אסור ליהנות עד מו״ש » (מ״ב רנ״ה:ה)
The Admur HaZaken makes a whole seif of it — his seif ב — and adds the reason: this holds even when there is no longer anything to fear, because the kindling itself was done in prohibition.
« אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֻדְלְקוּ אַחַר כָּךְ מֵאֲלֵיהֶם בְּשַׁבָּת בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁשּׁוּב אֵין לָחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יַחְתֶּה בָּהֶם — אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אָסוּר לֵהָנוֹת מֵהֶם בְּשַׁבָּת, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֻדְלְקוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם בְּאִסּוּר » (שו״ע הרב רנ״ה:ב)
- Kindled before Shabbat without reaching the measure, and the fire then catches entirely during Shabbat: one does not benefit from it, and the Mishna Berura refers to siman רנ״ד for waiting until Shabbat goes out.
- Kindled before Shabbat to the measure, and the fire then dwindles little by little during Shabbat: the measure was reached at the moment that counts, and one benefits from it.
- Kindled so shortly before Shabbat comes in that the fire had no time to enter the thickness of the log: that is the first case, not the second.
9. Modern practical nafka minot
What follows is not a psak. None of the sources of this siman speaks of electricity, and the nine points below say only which question of the siman each case raises. For practice, one asks one's rav.
1. Ordinary Shabbat candles. The criterion of the siman is that the flame hold by itself before Shabbat comes in. A wick just lit whose flame is still guttering is not in the same state as an established flame.
2. Electric lamp or LED. Two distinct questions, not to be confused: benefiting from the light during Shabbat, and discharging by it the kindling of the Shabbat lights. The second does not belong to our siman and is much discussed among the Acharonim; this page does not decide it.
3. Hotplate (plata). It resembles the coals of seif ב: once in operation it heats and goes on. Still it must actually be heating before Shabbat, and not merely plugged in.
4. Oven on Shabbat mode. The same question: is the appliance heating at the entry of Shabbat, or only set to heat afterwards? Section 8 shows that the moment that counts is the entry of Shabbat.
5. Fireplace or wood stove. This is the case of the text, and the most demanding: thick logs require the majority of the thickness and the majority of the circumference, following Rav Papa.
6. Gas with a visible flame. The flame is a real fire and it maintains itself. What remains in question is whether the rules of the pyre, written for a fire that consumes itself, apply as they stand to a flame fed continuously.
7. Electric grill or toaster. As with the oven: it is the state at the entry of Shabbat that one looks at.
8. Olive-oil lamps. Check that the oil has in fact risen in the wick and that the flame is feeding from it; a wick still burning on itself is not a flame that maintains itself.
9. Shabbat timer on a lamp. Here the siman does not suffice even to frame the question: what comes on during Shabbat by a timer was not alight before. That is a different debate from the pyre's, and it is treated elsewhere.
Going further
Level 3 — Synthesis: a structured recap, memory markers and decision trees.
Level 4 — Daat HaRav: the shitah of the Admur HaZaken (Shulchan Arukh HaRav), whose four seifim are quoted here throughout the sections.