Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Beitzah 22

1) MELACHAH FOR "MACHSHIREI OCHEL NEFESH" AND FOR OTHER FORMS OF "HANA'AS HA'GUF"

QUESTION: Aba bar Marta asked Abaye if one may extinguish a flame on Yom Tov for the sake of "Davar Acher." Abaye first replied that another house (or room) can be used. If no other house is available, then a Mechitzah can be set up. If there is no Mechitzah available, then a utensil should be placed over the candle. What if none of those alternatives are available? Abaye answered that it is Asur to extinguish the flame.

If Abaye rules that it is Asur to extinguish a flame for the sake of "Davar Acher," then why did he not say so to begin with?

ANSWERS:

(a) The TAZ (OC 514:2) explains as follows. The Rishonim ask why is Abaye ruling that it is Asur to extinguish the fire in this case, like the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Yehudah (as the Gemara concludes)? The Gemara later (28a) says that the Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who permits doing Melachos for the sake of Machshirei Ochel Nefesh (and he also permits Melachah for Machshirim of other forms of Hana'as ha'Guf, bodily pleasure, as Rashi explains). Why then did Abaye answer according to the Rabanan who argue with Rebbi Yehudah?

TOSFOS (DH Hahi) and the ROSH (2:19) answer that the Gemara there says that even though the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah, "Halachah v'Ein Morin Ken" - - when an authority is asked a question, he may not openly instruct the inquirer to follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. This is why Abaye did not say that it is Asur until after giving all of the other alternatives. By first telling him to obtain a dark room in some other way, Abaye was alluding to the inquirer that extinguishing the candle is not categorically prohibited (because the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah). When, in the end, Abaye told him that it is Asur, he did so because of the rule that "Ein Morin Ken," one may not directly instruct someone to act leniently and follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. He did not mean that it is categorically prohibited. Accordingly, the Rosh concludes that if a person has no other way to darken the room, then it is *permitted* to extinguish the candle, because in practice the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah.

Abaye was careful to say that he "*spoke* in accordance with the Rabanan," rather than that he *rules* like the Rabanan. He was not ruling like them, but rather he was stating the Halachah as they hold it, because even though the Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, "Ein Morin Ken."

(b) The CHASAM SOFER (quoted by his son in Mahadura Tinyana) explains that the other Rishonim who disagree with the Rosh (see next Insight) are also able to explain the reason why Abaye did not state that it was Asur right away. The RAMBAN (Milchamos) explains that even though we normally rule like Rebbi Yehudah regarding Melachah for Machshirei Ochel Nefesh, that is only true in cases where the Machshir is needed for a direct necessity of Ochel Nefesh. Here, though, the need for the Melachah is not associated directly with Ochel Nefesh, and he will not necessarily be losing out on Simchas Yom Tov if the Melachah is prohibited. In such cases when the Melachah is not needed for a primary need of Ochel Nefesh, we do not rule like Rebbi Yehudah, and therefore there is no Heter to do Melachah.

That is why Abaye instructed the inquirer to go to another house. Extinguishing the candle is not considered a primary need of Ochel Nefesh, because it is an unusual need (usually, Ochel Nefesh does not involve extinguishing a candle, since there are so many other ways to obtain a dark room). By suggesting other ways to get around the problem, Abaye was showing why he did not permit extinguishing the candle; since there are so many other ways to obtain a dark room, it is not permitted to extinguish the candle in the rare case of a person who has none of the other options, because such a situation is very unusual.

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses questions of extinguishing a flame for the sake of "Davar Acher," in order to prevent a financial loss, and in order to prevent one's house from filling up with smoke. What is the Halachah in these cases?

(a) The Gemara says that it depends on the argument between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan, who argue whether or not it is permitted to do Melachah for Machshirei Ochel Nefesh (and other non-food related, bodily pleasures) on Yom Tov. Since we rule like Rebbi Yehudah (Gemara, 28b), extinguishing a flame should be permitted where it increases one's pleasure on Yom Tov. Even though Abaye stated that it is Asur, he only stated so because "Halachah v'Ein Morin Ken." (TOSFOS, BA'AL HA'ME'OR, ROSH)

(b) The RIF and RAMBAM (Hilchos Yom Tov 4:4) write that according to the Gemara's conclusion, extinguishing a flame in these cases is Asur. The RAMBAN (Milchamos) explains that they hold that even though we rule like Rebbi Yehudah concerning Machshirei Ochel Nefesh, that is because the Chachamim wanted to make sure that one would not refrain from Simchas Yom Tov. In these cases, though, extinguishing the flame is not necessary for a primary need of Ochel Nefesh, and one will not refrain from Simchas Yom Tov if he cannot do the Melachah. (The ROSH also offers this explanation, as a second answer.)

It is not clear what the Ramban means. The CHASAM SOFER (cited in previous Insight) understands that the Ramban means these cases are uncommon and rare situations. The Chachamim did not permit doing Melachah for Hana'as ha'Guf in unusual cases. Alternatively, the Ramban means that in these cases it is still possible to eat, but it will just be uncomfortable to eat. Therefore, the Chachamim did not permit doing Melachah for Hana'as ha'Guf in these cases.

(c) TOSFOS (DH ha'Hi) explains that in practice, a compromise is made. Rebbi Yehudah actually permits two things: he permits doing Melachah for Machshirei Ochel Nefesh, and he permits doing Melachah for Machshirei Hana'as ha'Guf (as Rashi says in DH Rebbi Yehudah). The Gemara here is relying on the second Heter of Rebbi Yehudah, and that is why he permits extinguishing a flame for "Davar Acher" and in order not to have to eat outside (Rashi, DH Eisivei). We rule like Rebbi Yehudah only in his first Heter, and we permit doing Melachah for Machshirei Ochel Nefesh. We do not rule like Rebbi Yehudah in his second Heter, doing Melachah for Machshirei Hana'as ha'Guf. (This is similar to the Ramban's approach, according to the second understanding above, in answer (b), except that Tosfos implies that the Isur to do Melachah for Machshirei Hana'as ha'Guf is an Isur d'Oraisa, while the Ramban seems to learn that it is only mid'Rabanan.)

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 514:1) rules like the Rif (answer (b) above), that it is prohibited to extinguish a flame on Yom Tov. The REMA cites the Rishonim who permit it (answer (a) above), but he adds that if it is possible to go to another home to eat, then it is not permitted to extinguish the fire to prevent a financial loss (because then it is not being done for the sake of Machshirei Ochel Nefesh (pleasure on Yom Tov), but for the sake of preventing a financial loss).

22b