As discussed in a recent TftD, a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are, in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura. Buckle up.
After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Shabbos. However, since it was a (albeit, it seemed to me, small) leap in logic to make that conclusion, I resolved to confirm my conclusion with R' Fuerst. The rav's immediate and decisive response was, "A candle is a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור, so I don't see why not." The truth is, hearing the decisive and thoroughly resolute tone that rav used made its own impression on me. The rav then said, "The Mishna Brura brings a stringent opinion to consider a candle as מוקצה מחמת גופו, but we don't pasken like that." Again, decisively and thoroughly resolute -- though there is a stringent opinion, we pasken that our candles are definitely in the category of כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור; period.
Now, then, wouldn't an angel leave it at that and walk away satisfied? But I -- for better or worse -- consistently go where angels fear to tread. I pressed, "Bur R' Fuerst, where does the Mishna Brura bring that stringent opinion? I didn't see it." The rav, in his usual patient demeanor, took the third volume from the set of Mishna Brura he had next to his shtender (doesn't everyone have a set of Mishna Brura always on hand?) and turned to siman 308. Right there, the Rema to syef 3 specifically uses a candle as his example of a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. The Mishna Brura makes no mention of a stringent opinion. I even pointed to the place on the page where the Mishna Brura didn't bring a stringent opinion. I can me such a mechutzef... the rav just told me to be patient. (I would have probably slapped my hand. I almost did it myself when I realized what I had just done.) Then he turned three pages or so and said, "Right here." Pointed the place to me and let me digest it.
So... there in sk 34, the Mishna Brura first says that wicks are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. He then says that wax candles are also a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור, but there is a stringent opinion that they should be considered מוקצה מחמת גופו because they have no normal use except for the forbidden one. I asked R' Fuerst how I would know from this Mishna Brura that we don't pasken like that stringent opinion. The rav told me that it is the style of the Mishna Brura to state his p'sak halacha first and then mention other opinions. Why? So you should know. As far as the decisiveness of R' Fuerst's assertion that we don't pasken like that stringent opinion; that means that the Mishna Brura paskens that way and R' Fuerst has not seen a meaningful argument.
One final point... why did the Mishna Brura wait all the way to sk 34 before bringing up the stringent opinion when candles were already mentioned at the beginning of the siman? Answer: He didn't. The confusion was wholly mine. You may have noticed that I have (irritatingly perhaps) repeatedly use the phrase "our candles". That is because to Chazal (and the Shulchan Aruch), the word נר/candle (unmodified) means a vessel into which one puts oil and a wick. That's the נר to which the Rema is referring in syef 3 and on which there is no argument that it is a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. In sk 34, however, the Mishna Brura says "wax candles", aka "our candles"; it is on those that there is some discussion.
That was the final point... but if there were to be another one, it would be what to do with those darn candles when you want to actually serve the cake...
After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Shabbos. However, since it was a (albeit, it seemed to me, small) leap in logic to make that conclusion, I resolved to confirm my conclusion with R' Fuerst. The rav's immediate and decisive response was, "A candle is a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור, so I don't see why not." The truth is, hearing the decisive and thoroughly resolute tone that rav used made its own impression on me. The rav then said, "The Mishna Brura brings a stringent opinion to consider a candle as מוקצה מחמת גופו, but we don't pasken like that." Again, decisively and thoroughly resolute -- though there is a stringent opinion, we pasken that our candles are definitely in the category of כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור; period.
Now, then, wouldn't an angel leave it at that and walk away satisfied? But I -- for better or worse -- consistently go where angels fear to tread. I pressed, "Bur R' Fuerst, where does the Mishna Brura bring that stringent opinion? I didn't see it." The rav, in his usual patient demeanor, took the third volume from the set of Mishna Brura he had next to his shtender (doesn't everyone have a set of Mishna Brura always on hand?) and turned to siman 308. Right there, the Rema to syef 3 specifically uses a candle as his example of a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. The Mishna Brura makes no mention of a stringent opinion. I even pointed to the place on the page where the Mishna Brura didn't bring a stringent opinion. I can me such a mechutzef... the rav just told me to be patient. (I would have probably slapped my hand. I almost did it myself when I realized what I had just done.) Then he turned three pages or so and said, "Right here." Pointed the place to me and let me digest it.
So... there in sk 34, the Mishna Brura first says that wicks are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. He then says that wax candles are also a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור, but there is a stringent opinion that they should be considered מוקצה מחמת גופו because they have no normal use except for the forbidden one. I asked R' Fuerst how I would know from this Mishna Brura that we don't pasken like that stringent opinion. The rav told me that it is the style of the Mishna Brura to state his p'sak halacha first and then mention other opinions. Why? So you should know. As far as the decisiveness of R' Fuerst's assertion that we don't pasken like that stringent opinion; that means that the Mishna Brura paskens that way and R' Fuerst has not seen a meaningful argument.
One final point... why did the Mishna Brura wait all the way to sk 34 before bringing up the stringent opinion when candles were already mentioned at the beginning of the siman? Answer: He didn't. The confusion was wholly mine. You may have noticed that I have (irritatingly perhaps) repeatedly use the phrase "our candles". That is because to Chazal (and the Shulchan Aruch), the word נר/candle (unmodified) means a vessel into which one puts oil and a wick. That's the נר to which the Rema is referring in syef 3 and on which there is no argument that it is a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. In sk 34, however, the Mishna Brura says "wax candles", aka "our candles"; it is on those that there is some discussion.
That was the final point... but if there were to be another one, it would be what to do with those darn candles when you want to actually serve the cake...
Comments