Parshas Vayakhel

“Lo Sivaru Eish Bechol Moshvoseichem” – The intent of the command against burning fire on Shabbos

Compiled from the following sources: Likkutei Sichos Vol. 36 p. 187; Mamar “Vayidaber Hashem”[1] Parshas Vayakehl Pekudei 5721[2]; Sichas Parshas Vayakhel 5749[3]; Igros Kodesh 13 p. 116

Parshas Vayakhel discusses the construction of the Mishkan by Betzalel and the Jewish people. It is the second time that the Torah repeats the details of its construction, having already discussed it in detail in Parshas Terumah, Tetzaveh, and Ki Sisa. The difference between the two Parishiyos is that the earlier Parishiyos discussed G-d’s command to Mosheh in how to build the Mishkan and all of its vessels, priestly garments, and holy incense and oil, while this current Parsha of Vayakhel discusses Moshe repeating these instructions of the Jewish people. Now, at the end of the set of commands from G-d to Moses in the portion of Ki Sisa he instructs Moses about the guarding of Shabbos. Peculiarly, however, in our Parsha of Vayakehl where Moshe gives over these instructions that he received from G-d to the Jewish people, he changes the order of the instructions and first begins commanding them regarding keeping the Shabbos, and only then does he discuss the instruction of building the Mishkan. The reason behind this change of order according to the teachings of Chassidus is discussed in Torah Or of the Alter Rebbe, and printed in our corresponding Sefer “The Chassidishe Parsha-Torah Or Likkutei Torah” for Parshas Vayakhel. The focus of our treatise is thus not on the above question, but rather as to the Torah’s choice of instruction regarding the guarding of the Shabbos. You see, while the command to guard the Shabbos is repeated many times throughout the Torah, it never gives us a detailed instruction of what exactly we are meant to observe and abstain from doing with exception to our Parsha of Vaykhel in which Moshe tells the Jewish people one detail of the intended observance of Shabbos, which is that one should not light a fire in his dwelling places on Shabbos. The Talmud and commentators of the Chumash naturally question as to why the Torah felt it necessary to mention the specific command when we all know that there are 39 Melachos that one must abstain from on Shabbos, and why then is this the only one explicitly mentioned in the Torah. They all conclude that it must have been excluded from the rest of the 39 Melachos and especially written in the Torah to teach us some special law or Divine lesson that relates to fire. In this compilation below, we bring you the various answers and lessons offered by the Talmud and commentators, leading to our main focus in bringing the Rebbe’s special insight into this command from four different sources of the Rebbe’s teachings, Likkutei Sichos, Sefer Hamamrim, Toras Menachem, and Igros Kodesh, which altogether blend into a beautiful treatise on the subject with a powerful lesson for every person to learn and internalize.

1. The question-Why exclude from the 39 Melachos, the prohibition against lighting fire:

The verse^[4] states, “Lo Sivaru Eish Bechol Moshvoseichem/ You shall not light a fire in all your dwelling places on Shabbos.” The question is asked as to why the Torah felt it necessary to mention the specific command when we all know that there are 39 Melachos that one must abstain from on Shabbos, and why then is this the only one explicitly mentioned in the Torah. They all conclude that it must have been excluded from the rest of the 39 Melachos and especially written in the Torah to teach us some special law or Divine lesson that relates to fire. The following are the various answers and insights that are offered:

2. The Talmud – The exclusion was done to teach us an important Halachic ramification relevant to the laws of Shabbos:

The Talmud[5], after addressing the above question, brings two opinions as to for what novelty G-d decided to exclude this command and explicitly mention it in his Torah.

Rebbe Yossi-One who lights a fire on Shabbos receives lashes and not capital punishment: Rebbe Yossi is of the opinion that “Lelav Yatza,” meaning that it was excluded to teach us that one who transgresses the prohibition against lighting a fire on Shabbos receives a lesser punishment than one who transgresses any of the other 39 Melachos. Normally, one who transgresses one of the 39 Melachos is liable for death by Sekilah or Kareis, and thus the novelty here is that one who lights a fire on Shabbos is not liable for death but rather simply for lashes.[6]

Rebbe Nasan-An unintentional transgression of the 39 Melachos requires an offering for each one: Rebbe Nasan, however, is of the opinion that even one who lights a fire on Shabbos is liable for death just like any of the other primary Biblical prohibitions that are transgressed, and the reason why the command regarding fire was explicitly written is to teach as a general rule that is relevant to all the 39 Melachos, and that is that each one of the 39 Melachos carry an independent obligation of bringing a Chatas offering if they are transgressed unintentionally, and it does not suffice to bring a single offering on behalf of all of his transgressions of 39 Melachos.[7]

The prohibition to punish on Shabbos: The Talmud[8] adds an additional Halachic teaching from the above verse from the seemingly superfluous words of “in all your encampments.” As is known, the obligation to guard the Shabbos is relevant to every single Jew on a personal level, and not simply to those who are living in the encampment, and thus it is asked as to why the verse makes such a statement. Thus, the Talmud derives a very important Halachic ruling based on those seemingly superfluous words, using the rules of Gezeiras Shava, that it is forbidden for a Beis Din to give capital punishment on Shabbos. Meaning, that this verse gives clarification towards a seeming contradiction of commands, as on the one hand the Beis Din is commanded to put to death one who is liable for capital punishment and to do so without delay, which would imply that it should be done even on Shabbos, while on the other hand murder is one of the 39 prohibited Melachos on Shabbos, and hence the question is asked which command pushes off which? Thus, the Talmud answers based on the above verse that the command of giving capital punishment is deferred due to the command against killing on Shabbos. According to this interpretation, the verse is coming to say that the Beis Din should not put someone to death on Shabbos even if he is liable for capital punishment by fire, and the same applies regarding one who is liable for any of the other methods of capital punishment. Practically, this is how we rule Lehalacha, and extend this initial intent of the verse against capital punishment to prohibit giving any punishment on Shabbos, and hence it is forbidden for a court to convene for even a monetary case on Shabbos[9], and it is forbidden to capture and incarcerate a [white collar crime[10]] criminal who is liable for punishment in order so he does not run away, [and one desires to hold him until his due punishment is met]. This applies even if the criminal may become a fugitive if the incarceration is delayed. Rather, if he runs away, we have no responsibility.[11]  Certainly, it is forbidden to give lashes on Shabbos.[12]

3. The answers of the Mefarshei Hatorah:

To teach us that Mileches Ochel Nefesh is forbidden on Shabbos:[21] Some of the commentators explain that the reason for why the Torah explicitly mentions the prohibition against lighting a fire is because we may have thought that it is permitted to light a fire for the sake of cooking on Shabbos just as is permitted to be done on holidays, and therefore in order to negate this a Torah explicitly prohibits lighting a fire on Shabbos.

People don’t realize it’s a real Melacha:[22] Some of the commentators explain that the reason for why the Torah explicitly mentions the prohibition against lighting a fire is because people don’t view it as a real act of labor and thus they will be lenient to light fires on Shabbos so long as they don’t make anything using the fire until after Shabbos.

Permitted to light before Shabbos, unlike Karaits:[23] Some of the commentators explain that the reason for why the Torah explicitly mentions the prohibition against lighting a fire is to negate the opinion of the Karaits who hold that one may not have a fire remain lit on Shabbos even if it was lit before Shabbos, and hence they eat cold food on Shabbos, and in today’s modern times shut off all of their electricity before Shabbos. Thus, the Torah is telling us that the prohibition against lighting a fire is only “on the day of Shabbos” and not from before Shabbos, thus permitting for fire to remain lit into Shabbos.

A command not to get angry on Shabbos and not to light the fire of Gihenom: The Zohar[24], brought and elaborated on in Reishis Chochmah[25] and in the Shelah, writes that the command against lighting a fire on Shabbos is coming to teach us that one should not get angry on Shabbos, and the one who gets angry on Shabbos causes the fire of Gihenom to be lit, and thus transgresses the command of “thou shall not light a fire in all of ones encampments,” which includes also the world of souls. [It is brought in the name of Rav Ahron of Karlin, that getting angry on Erev Shabbos while dealing with the Shabbos preparations, effects the blessing that the guarding of Shabbos benefits oneself and his family.]

Desecrating Shabbos causes fires: The Maharsha explains that the command is coming to advise us regarding the cause of fires which burn down homes and communities r”l, and that this is due to desecration of the holy Shabbos, and hence the verse is instructing us to guard the Shabbos in order so there will not be any fires in your dwelling places.

May light in the Beis Hamikdash: The Keli Yakar explains that the command is coming to teach us that the prohibition against lighting a fire on Shabbos applies only outside the temple, “in your encampments,” however inside the temple it is permitted to lie fire for the sake of the temple service, such as to light the daily lighting of the menorah.

Fire represents the general Divine light of creation: The Shelah[26] explains that fire spiritually corresponds to the Divine light used for creation and is hence the source of all the 39 Melachos, and it is for this reason that it is explicitly mentioned, as in essence it covers all the 39 Melachos, as if one stops revealing the Divine light used for creation, he in essence is resting from all the 39 Melachos.

The Rebbe’s approach

4. The definition [i.e. Geder] of the prohibition against lighting fire:[27]

There is a discussion and debate amongst the later Poskim as to whether the Melacha of Havarah, which is the prohibition against lighting a fire and Shabbos, is prohibited mainly in cases that one intends to benefit from the actual fire irrelevant of its source of fuel [i.e. to benefit from its light, to benefit from its heat, to cook something, etc.], or mainly if one desires to turn its source of fuel into ash and then use the ash for a certain purpose. The confusion begins with how the Rambam chose to write this law in his Magnum Opus Mishneh Torah:

The words of the Rambam:[28] “One who lights anything on fire [on Shabbos] is liable so long as he has a need for the ash however if you burn something for destruction purposes then he is exempt because he is doing an act of ruining, although one who ignites the field of his enemy out of revenge is liable as he has fixed his evil inclination. Likewise, one who lights a candle or wood, whether to heat himself up or to give light, is liable.” The difficulty with the words of the Rambam is that in the beginning he stipulates that one is only liable if he needs the ash, while in the end concludes that liability applies even if one simply needs the light. Now, while the Poskim all agree in the end of the day that one is liable in both cases; when he’s burning something for the sake of its ash, or burning something so he can benefit from the light of the flame, it is debated as to what is the main prohibition, is the main prohibition the burning and destruction of an item through fire or is the main prohibition the actual lighting of the fire.

The opinion of the Alter Rebbe-The prohibition is the actual lighting the fire:[29] The Alter Rebbe learns in the Rambam that the definition of the prohibition against lighting a fire applies mainly when one has a need for the light irrelevant of whether one has a need for the ash, and that the essence of the prohibition is against increasing a flame on Shabbos, whether through initially igniting it or extending it, and not the making of ash. This can be proven from the fact that the Rambam rules at the end of the above law that one who ignites a metal charcoal is liable. This can also be proven from the fact that there is no minimum measurement of how much one is required to burn to be liable for a sin offering.[30]

The opinion of the Avnei Nezer-The prohibition is the burning and destruction of the item that is alit: The Avnei Nezer[31] learns that the definition of the prohibition against lighting a fire applies mainly when one has a need for the ash, as the main prohibition of lighting a fire on Shabbos is due to the destruction that it does to the item that is lit, and it is only as a subcategory that we make one liable also for lighting for the sake of benefiting from the light. According to his opinion, it is understood why the Rambam preceded the example of lighting a fire for the sake of using its ash prior to the other examples, as this is its main definition. Practically, we rule that the former opinion of the Alter Rebbe, although it remains to be understood why the Rambam preceded the case of ash to the main case of benefiting from the light.

Why the Rambam preceded the case of ash: Seemingly, one can answer, that the reason why the Rambam preceded the case of ash is in order to give us a case of total negation of destruction for the sake of destruction, which is more apparent in a case where you will use the ash of the burnt item versus the latter case where no use will be made of the burnt item and you will simply be benefiting from its light.

5. The Divine lesson of the prohibition against lighting a fire when you need its ash:[32]

Each one of the 39 prohibited Melachos contain a corresponding aspect of Divine service as can be understood from the fact that they were done in the process of making the Mishkan, a dwelling place for G-d, and hence certainly they have a source of holiness even though their performance must be ceased on Shabbos. Thus, we will now explore the Divine service that lighting a fire corresponds to.

Fire represents the soul of a Jew which burns with love for G-d: The verse states that “the candle of G-d is the soul of man,” and hence the concept of lighting candle during the week represents a rapturous passion for G-d.[33] It is for this reason that one is liable on Shabbos for lighting even a small amount of fire, as even a very small amount of love of G-d can lead a Jew to have Mesirus Nefesh and give up his life for G-d’s sake and hence we see that by fire, which is love, there is no measurement of quantity.

The ash represents the need to be involved in the physical world and its surroundings: A person who fulfills the service of love, which is the Divine correspondence of lighting a fire during the week, may come to mistakenly think that he is meant to reach an ecstatic state of love of G-d to the point of Klos Hanefesh, that his soul literately leave his body as a flame leaves the wick, in order to cleave to G-d. Thus, the Rambam writes that the Melacha of lighting a fire of Shabbos is transgressed when one needs the ash, as ash represents the mundane and physical and is the most course of the four elements found in the physical world which makes up every item. Thus, the Rambam is instructing us that during the week when we try to fulfill the Mitzvah of lighting our personal fire of love for G-d it should not lead to expiry of the soul, as not only is one required to remain alive in this world but furthermore that is the entire purpose of his existence, to refine it and elevate it through his study of Torah that involves the physical world, and through the performance of mitzvahs using the physical objects of the world, and that should be the entire purpose of his love and fire, to further encourage him to make G-d a dwelling place in this world and within his soul. Thus, if he ignites his fiery love not for the sake of utilizing it to add more in his service of G-d with the physical world, he does not fulfill the condition that “the fire is lit for the sake of the ash,” and just as he may not be liable for such a fire on Shabbos [if he does not need its lights and its for destructive purposes] so too his fiery love is not true and complete.

One’s passionate love for G-d must be founded on Bittul:[34] Another lesson that can be learned from the above need of the ash, is that one’s Divine service of love of G-d and performance of Torah and mitzvahs must have an element of Bittul, self-nullification, and it is to be bound with it and is to be built off of it. This means that one’s Divine service cannot be self-centered, for the sake of providing himself with the spiritual benefits that are received from serving G-d, such as enjoying the intellectual challenges of Torah study and the fame gained for being a scholar, and the enjoyment that comes with the feeling of passionate love for Him. Rather, one’s Divine service must be founded on him being nullified to G-d and wanting to become absolutely submissive to Him by following His every will and desire. Thus, the Rambam is teaching us that fire without the inclusion of ash, which represents humility and nullification, is not considered a fire at all.

6. Why is one being instructed not to light the fire of love for G-d on Shabbos?

The above teaching and Divine lesson of the Rebbe raises a very difficult question, as if one interprets that the Divine service of lighting a fire is to ignite the love of G-d of the soul, then why on earth would one be commanded not to do so on Shabbos, and on the contrary he should specifically do so on Shabbos when he naturally has the time to spend performing this Divine service. This question is answered in a Mamar given by the Rebbe in the year 1961.

There exist two types of love:[35] There exist two types of love, one being a self-serving love that comes with personal enjoyment and incentive in which one desires to retain his own independence but enjoy the feeling of loving the other at the same time. The second type of love is a total selfless love in which one desires to become completely submissive and united with his lover, even to the point of death for the sake of his lover and loss of his independence. The same applies regarding one’s love for G-d, that there exists a love which is self-serving, and in which one is not ready to give up his life for G-d, and there exists a love which is so passionate and intense that the person is willing to give up his sense of self and expire for the sake of G-d. The former type of love is known as Ahavas Olam, and is the love experienced after the performance of Teshuvah Tatah.[36] The latter form of love is synonymous with Teshuvah Ilaah, and was famously performed by Elazar Ben Durdayah who died due to his rapturous state of ecstatic love for G-d while repenting. Thus, on Shabbos one is commanded not to light the lower fire of love, but rather to light the higher fire of Teshuvah Ila’ah which is represented in the word Shabbos which is the same letters as the word repent [i.e. שבת תשב].

There exist two types of fires:[37] To explain the above one step deeper. There exist two types of fires, one being an actual flame and the second being the flame found in a stone which is extracted when another stone is hit against it. So too, spiritually there exists these two types of fires, the former corresponding to the Divine light that is drawn down from the world of Atzilus when one performs Torah and Mitzvahs and is involved in the Divine service of prayer. The above acts of service of G-d draw below a revealed level of Divinity has been synonymous with the fire of a viewable flame. The potential spark that is found in a stone, however, corresponds to a much deeper and hidden level of G-dliness that derives from above the world of Atzilus, above Seder Hishtalshlus, and is thus referred to in Hebrew as the level of Tzur. The Baal Teshuvah, when he performs repentance of the level of Teshuvah Ilaah draws down Divinity from this much higher level of G-dliness. This level cannot be obtained from the Divine service of Torah and Mitzvos, which is the regular service of the righteous who do not sin, and it is precisely due to this that repentance has ability to fill the coffers of the person who repented with renewed G-dliness, despite him having lacked the performance of Torah and Mitzvos and its Divine revelation. Thus, G-d is commanding every Jew on Shabbos to try to perform the Divine service of Teshuvah Ilaah, which is called Tzur, and not suffice with only the Divine service of “fire” which draws down from a lower level of G-dliness. This is also the reason that we are commanded not to punish on Shabbos, as explained above, as since Shabbos corresponds to the level of Teshuvah Ilaah, it is above the concept of sin and rectifies sin and therefore we do not get punishment for sin on Shabbos.

A command against foreign fires:[38] A further explanation to the command not to light a fire on Shabbos is that it refers to fires that are foreign to Divine service and that involve the lust and passion of the physical and corporal world, the passion for various sinful activities, the passion for good food, the passion for the other gender, the passion for money, the passion for honor, and likewise the fire of anger which is the source of discord and dispute amongst people. Hence, the Torah is commanding us to especially extinguish these fires on Shabbos, and while certainly even during the week one is commanded to extinguish them, nonetheless Shabbos has a special power to influence the weekdays, and hence through extinguishing it on Shabbos one will affect also his ability to extinguish it during the weekdays.

___________________________________________________

[1] Bilti Mugah

[2] Printed in Toras Menachem Vol. 30 p. 188

[3] Printed in Hisvadyus 5749 2 p. 376-388

[4] Vayakhel 35:3

[5] Sanhedrin 35b and Yevamos 6a, brought also in Rashi 35:3

[6] Rashi Sanhedrin ibid

[7] Rashi ibid

[8] Sanhedrin 35a-b

[9] Admur 339:3; 306:27; Michaber 339:4 and Mishneh Beitza 36b “We do not judge on Shabbos”

The reason: This is due to a decree one may come to write down the details of the hearing. [Admur ibid; M”A 339:3; Beitza 37a] Now, although the Sages permitted communal matters to be done on Shabbos and did not suspect for the above decrees, nonetheless, judging on Shabbos is complete Rabbinical prohibition [i.e. Shvus], and a complete Rabbinical prohibition is never permitted even for communal purposes. [Admur 306:27]

[10] See Aruch Hashulchan 339:11; Tzitz Eliezer 11:23

[11] Admur ibid; Rama 339:4; Beis Yosef 263; Shivlei Haleket 60 in name of Rav Sharira Gaon

[12] Admur ibid; Rama 339:4; Beis Yosef 263; Shivlei Haleket 60 in name of Rav Sharira Gaon

The reason: As this is included in the prohibition against giving judgment. [Implication of Admur ibid in parentheses; Rama ibid] Alternatively, some Poskim suggest that perhaps giving lashes is Biblically forbidden because it may cause a wound, which is a Biblical prohibition, and is thus included in the Biblical prohibition against giving punishment. [Rambam 24:7 as explained in M”A ibid; M”A 278:1 in name of Turei Even 40 and Rashal regarding a fight that this applies even according to Rebbe Shimon who holds Eino Tzarich Legufa is exempt; P”M 339 A”A 3] However, in truth, perhaps it is only a Rabbinical prohibition, as it is a Melacha She’eiyno Tzarich Legufa and one has no intent to make a wound. [See Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid that he has no intent to make a wound; P”M ibid that the above Biblical prohibition only applies according to opinion of Eino Tzarich Legufa Chayav; Admur 316:16 regarding trapping]

[13] Zohar 2 p. 203, brought in Igros Kodesh 13:116; Zohar Tikkunim p. 68a Tikkun 24, brought in Yalkut Reuveini Vayakhel; Zohar Bereishis 14b and Bamidbar

[14] Admur 291:2; 299:19; Rama 291:2; M”A 299:17 in name of Darkei Moshe; Darkei Moshe 294 in name of Or Zarua Hilchos Motzei Shabbos 90 and Zohar; Tosafus Pesachim 105a; Rosh Pesachim 13; Mordechai; Ben Ish Chaiy Vayeitzei 2:24; M”B 299:40; Piskeiy Teshuvos 299:15

[15] Admur 291:2; Opinion in Rama 291:2; Tosafus Pesachim 105a; Rosh Pesachim 13; Mordechai; See Kaf Hachaim 291:16-17; Piskeiy Teshuvos 291:3

[16] Admur 299:19; M”A 299:17 in name of Darkei Moshe; Darkei Moshe 294 in name of Or Zarua Hilchos Motzei Shabbos 90 and Zohar; Zohar Bereishis 14b and Bamidbar; Ben Ish Chaiy Vayeitzei 2:24; M”B 299:40; Piskeiy Teshuvos 299:15

[17] Setimas Hapoksim as the above prohibition is only in reference to a Beis Din, or community, punishing or incarcerating an individual, and not to a parent who does so for educational purposes.

[18] Tzitz Eliezer 15:41 brought in Piskeiy Teshuvos 316:23

The trapping prohibition: There is no trapping prohibition involved in trapping humans. [Setimas Hapoksim in 339; Piskeiy Teshuvos 316:23] One may thus lock a child in his room if needed. [Tzitz Eliezer 15:41 brought in Piskeiy Teshuvos 316:23]

Other opinions: Some Poskim question that perhaps the trapping prohibition applies to a child. [Avnei Nezer 189:22 based on Tosafus Menachos 64a]

[19] Some Poskim suggest that perhaps giving lashes is Biblically forbidden because it may cause a wound, which is a Biblical prohibition, and is thus included in the Biblical prohibition against giving punishment. [Rambam 24:7 as explained in M”A ibid; M”A 278:1 in name of Turei Even 40 and Rashal regarding a fight that this applies even according to Rebbe Shimon who holds Eino Tzarich Legufa is exempt; P”M 339 A”A 3] However, in truth, perhaps it is only a Rabbinical prohibition, as it is a Melacha She’eiyno Tzarich Legufa and one has no intent to make a wound. [see Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid that he has no intent to make a wound; P”M ibid that the above Biblical prohibition only applies according to opinion of Eino Tzarich Legufa Chayav; Admur 316:16]

[20] Piskeiy Teshuvos 339:7

[21] Ramban 35:3 in name of Midrash Rebbe Nasan; Even Ezra 35:3; Rashbam 35:3

[22] Daas Zekeinim 35:3

[23] Maggid Meisharim Parshas Vayakhel p. 25; Yalkut Reuveini Parshas Vayakehl

[24] Zohar Tikkunim p. 28

[25] Reishis Chochmah Shaar Ha’anavah chapter 2 p. 368 [old print]

[26] Miseches Shabbos 136b; Parshas Shemini 340b, brought in Mamar “Vayidaber Hashem”  Parshas Vayakehl Pekudei 5721

[27] Likkutei Sichos Vol. 36 p. 187

[28] Shabbos 12:1

[29] Admur 495:2; Kuntrus Achron 495:2

[30] Tzafnas Paneiach in Shut Dvinsk 2:35

[31] Avnei Nezer O.C. 238

[32] Likkutei Sichos Vol. 36 p. 187

[33] See Tanya Chapter 19

[34] See Mamar “Vayidaber Hashem”  Parshas Vayakehl Pekudei 5721 letter 3 for a similar concept regarding the fire consuming the wick even though the concept of ash mentioned by the Rambam is not recorded there

[35] Based on Mamar “Vayidaber Hashem” Parshas Vayakehl Pekudei 5721

[36] See Tanya Chapters 29-34, and Igeres Hateshuvah chapters 7-9

[37] Mamar “Vayidaber Hashem” Parshas Vayakehl Pekudei 5721

[38] See Sichas Parshas Vayakhel 5749