Charred Wicks
A manuscript variant from Professor Zvi Arie Steinfeld, zt"l
This year, as I struggled with lighting the Chanukkah candles, with a few going out and being relit, I thought back to an idea I heard from Professor Zvi Arie Steinfeld, zt"l, when I took several courses in academic Talmud with him at Revel. He helped me greatly in fostering my approach.
I won’t present it exactly as he did, but close enough. In perek Bameh Madlikin, the Mishnah Shabbat 2:5 reads:
הַמְכַבֶּה אֶת הַנֵּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מִתְיָרֵא מִפְּנֵי גוֹיִם, מִפְּנֵי לִסְטִים, מִפְּנֵי רוּחַ רָעָה, וְאִם בִּשְׁבִיל הַחוֹלֶה שֶׁיִּישַׁן, פָּטוּר. כְּחָס עַל הַנֵּר, כְּחָס עַל הַשֶּׁמֶן, כְּחָס עַל הַפְּתִילָה, חַיָּב.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי פּוֹטֵר בְּכֻלָּן חוּץ מִן הַפְּתִילָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשָׂהּ פֶּחָם:One who extinguishes the lamp on Shabbat because he is afraid due to gentiles, from whom he is hiding in his home, and due to thieves, or if one is afraid due to an evil spirit, i.e., he is depressed and prefers sitting in the dark, or if he extinguished the flame due to the sick person so that he will sleep, he is exempt. However, in a case where he extinguishes the flame in order to spare the lamp, spare the oil, or spare the wick, he is liable.
Rabbi Yosei exempts him in all of those cases, as in his opinion no labor prohibited by Torah law is being performed by extinguishing the flame, except for the case where he seeks to spare the wick. Only in that case is extinguishing a creative action because he makes the wick into charcoal by extinguishing the flame.
Focusing on Rabbi Yossi, the way this is typically understood is that even if the person’s only intent was to spare the wick from being entirely consumed, he is liable for violating Shabbat, because the side-effect of extinguishing the wick was to turn it into charcoal. This, even though his intent in doing so isn’t to actually make the wick.
Turning a wick into charcoal is a good thing. Indeed, there is a meritorious practice of husbands lighting and quickly extinguishing the Shabbos candles to make them easier for his wife to light. And, to cite Aladdin Lamps about charring the wick:
Wicks need to have about 1/8” of char (partially burnt, blackened surface) on the top. This makes the wick much easier to light and keep a steady flame, and also is important for creating the blue flame.
New wicks are sold with the charring already done. Reasons a wick might need to be re-charred:
Wick was over-cleaned and the char was removed (often the case if using a razor blade)
Old wick unused for some time, or roughed up burning surface from placing and removing the outer wick tube, causing char to be worn off and the top to become frayed and uneven
The gemara immediately grapples with the authorship of the Mishnah, and whether we are operating according to Rabbi Yehuda, according to whom one is liable for melakha she’eina tzerikha legufa, even if the result or resulting product is not what was intended, or according to Rabbi Shimon, according to whom one is not liable.
What about Rabbi Yossi? Does he work within Rabbi Shimon or Rabbi Yehuda? The discussion on Shabbat 31b ends with this:
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. וּמַאי שְׁנָא פְּתִילָה? כִּדְאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הָכָא בִּפְתִילָה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַבְהֲבָהּ עָסְקִינַן, דִּבְהָהִיא אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֵי, דְּקָא מְתַקֵּן מָנָא.
אָמַר רָבָא: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשָׂהּ פֶּחָם, וְלָא קָתָנֵי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית פֶּחָם. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Actually, Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And as far as the question, what is different about a wick, that can be answered as Rav Hamnuna said, and some say, Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here, we are dealing with a wick that one must singe before lighting it in order to facilitate its burning, as, in that case, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that extinguishing the flame is prohibited, as, by doing so, he prepares a vessel for use.
Rava said: That interpretation is also precise in the language of the mishna, as it was taught in the mishna that one who extinguished a wick is liable because he makes the wick into charcoal intentionally, and it was not taught because charcoal was made on its own. The Gemara concludes: Conclude from it that the mishna is to be understood in that manner.
Rava’s diyuk seems strange. First, what are the contrasting possible ways of expressing it? It is שֶׁהוּא עוֹשָׂהּ פֶּחָם vs. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית פֶּחָם. Those differences seem to be twofold:
mipenei vs. not mipenei
shena’aseit vs. she‘osah
For shena’aseit, it makes sense as a difference, for “being made” vs. “he [directly] makes” is a difference in melakha she’eina tzerikha legufa. Although one may object that regardless, even someone who directly makes it, does that mean that it was his intent when acting?
Meanwhile, what does the mipnei or the lack of mipnei indicate? Is that meaningful, or a careless error in quoting, or a perhaps a scribal error?
In Hachi Garsinan, we see variants. Our printed texts have both differences, but several manuscripts (Munich, Oxford, Vatican) have מפני in both Rava’s citation and alternative formulation, so the only difference is #2, shena’aseit vs. she‘osah. There may be other manuscripts, though, that have both quoted.
Professor Steinfeld pointed out what appears in Ktav Yad Kaufmann, which can help clarify the question.
Here, it is Mishnah Six rather than Five. And there is some dittography, which the scribe then crosses out. But most importantly, the text is חוץ מן הפתחלה שהוא עושה פיחם, without the word מפני. Then, the scribe inserted מפני as a marginal gloss. Note also the word מפני appears multiple times in the preceding Mishnaic text, and the gloss could have also been copied from a different Mishnaic text, or from a Talmudic manuscript.
Professor Steinfeld argues that חוץ מן הפתחלה שהוא עושה פיחם. Further, it is point of difference #1 that was original to Rava. His diyuk is שהוא עושה פיחם rather than מפני שעושה פיחם. How so? The meaning is now that Rabbi Yossi exempts in all of them, including snuffing out to spare the wick, except for the particular “wick which he is making into a charcoal”. The rest of it, with שנעשית as a difference, is unnecessary and was added by later hand which didn’t understand the import of change #1.
So Rava should read: דְּקָתָנֵי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשָׂהּ פֶּחָם, וְלָא קָתָנֵי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשָׂהּ פֶּחָם. That is exactly the melakha she’eina tzerikha legufa distinction.