Extinguishing Fire on Shabbat

Question: What should I do if fire breaks out on Shabbat? Does it matter how big the fire is or where it is?

Answer:

• If possible, extinguish the fire immediately. Even the smallest fire can become an uncontrollable blaze with fatal results.
• If the fire is out of hand evacuate the premises, call 911, and notify neighbors.
• As a preventive measure, visit https://www.ready.gov/home-fires on a weekday to learn more and be prepared.

This answer seems obvious, but the reason many observant Jews ask questions similar to yours is that Halakhic literature sends mixed messages regarding this topic. On one hand there is insistence on the importance of saving lives, and a ruling that one must extinguish fire on Shabbat to prevent danger. On the other hand, many classic sources write that we should remain inactive in case of fire and just try to save our possessions. This ambiguity has led to a reluctance to extinguishing fire on Shabbat and to tragic consequences. The reason that many choose to side with the message of remaining inactive rather than with the one which calls for action is that fire has become synonymous with transgressing Shabbat. In antiquity, there were sects which interpreted the prohibition of kindling fire on Shabbat to include preexisting fire. They would sit in the dark and eat cold food. This extreme interpretation was considered heretical, and R. Zerahya HaLevi writes[1]:

וכל מי שאינו אוכל חמין צריך בדיקה אחריו אם הוא מין

One who does not eat hot food on Shabbat should be suspected of heresy.

To explain why Halakhic sources are ambiguous and why my ruling here is unequivocal that fire must be extinguished, let us start with the Halakhic definition of extinguishing fire.

Halakhic definition of extinguishing fire

Extinguishing fire on Shabbat, in most cases, is a rabbinical and not a biblical prohibition. The essential difference between lighting and extinguishing a fire is that the former is active and creative, while the latter is the cessation of an existing action. This type of work is defined as מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה – an action with no practical and lasting results.^[1]

This is clearly stated in the second chapter of Mishna Shabbat, recited on Friday night:^[2]

המכבה את הנר מפני שהוא מתירא מפני עובדי כוכבים, מפני לסטים, מפני רוח רעה, ואם בשביל החולה שיישן, פטור. כחס על הנר, כחס על השמן, כחס על הפתילה חייב. ורבי יוסי פוטר בכולן, חוץ מן הפתילה מפני שהוא עושה פחם.

If one extinguishes a candle because he is afraid of the gentiles, robbers, or insanity, or to let a sick person sleep, he is exempt of punishment. If he does so to lengthen the life of the vessel or the wick, or in order to save oil, he is punishable. Rabbi Yose exempts in all cases except that of the wick because he turns it into coal.

The Mishnah says that if one had a justified reason for extinguishing the candle, he is exempt from punishment, and the debate is what is a justified reason. According to the majority opinion, fear of danger is a justified reason, even if the danger is not clear and present or life-threatening. According to Rabbi Yose, any cause is justified unless one wanted to preserve the wick. Extinguishing the candle makes the wick burn better in the future, and so the action has a lasting result.^[3]

The Mishna, however, deals with an action which has already been taken, and does not say that extinguishing afire is permissible. Let us review the Mishna guidelines in case a fire breaks out.

In tractate Shabbat, chapter 16, we read:

[16:2] …if there is fire on Friday night, one can save enough food for three meals, in the morning one saves two meals, in the afternoon, enough food for one meal…

[16:3] One can save a breadbasket, even if it contains a hundred loaves... He can tell others: “come and save for yourself”. If they are smart, they will negotiate with him after Shabbat [ask for payment].

[16:4] …he takes out all of his utensils, he wears all that he can wear, and he wraps all that he can wrap. Rabbi Yose says: eighteen garments. He goes back in, wears more clothes and takes them out, and he can tell others “Come and save with me”.

[16:5] …one can cover chests and cabinets with a goat’s hide, because it slows down the fire [but does not burn]. One can also make a wall of vessels, whether full or empty, to block the fire. Rabbi Yose forbids using new clay vessels filled with water, because they cannot withstand the heat and when they break, they extinguish the fire.

[16:6] If a non-Jew wishes to extinguish the fire, there is no need to tell him to do or not to do so… but if a minor wishes to extinguish the fire, he should be prevented…^[4]

Reality vs. the Mishnah

Even though the Mishna considers extinguishing fire a rabbinical prohibition, and one which is not punishable when life is in danger, it does not allow to extinguish a blaze. This is surprising because we know how dangerous fire can be. Moreover, when we compare the Mishna to expert advice as appears in a government website^[1], we find serious discrepancies.

Smoke inhalation: The Mishna recommends entering the burning house repeatedly to save food and garments. The experts tell us that “Smoke is toxic. If you must escape through smoke, get low and go under the smoke to your way out.”

Trapped fire: Another reason to evacuate the house as fast as possible is that the visible blaze is just the tip of a much larger fire raging in a sealed room. Firefighters experienced massive explosions when a door was opened, and fresh oxygen rushed in. For that reason, the advice of the experts is that before opening a door, feel the doorknob and door. If either is hot, leave the door closed and use your second way out. If there is smoke coming around the door, leave the door closed and use your second way out. If you open a door, open it slowly. Be ready to shut it quickly if heavy smoke or fire is present.

Clothes: The Mishna recommends wearing up to eighteen items of clothing in the burning house, going out, taking them off, and going back inside for more. This sounds insane as we know how dangerous it is when clothes catch on fire. The advice given today is very clear: stop, drop, and roll – stop immediately, drop to the ground, and cover your face with your hands. Moving or running with burning clothes feeds the fire with more oxygen and burning clothes can cause severe burns.

We see that the sages of the Mishna did not consider a house fire to be dangerous and even encouraged people to go back into a burning house more than once. Since all the contemporary recommendations are based on experience, we must assume that the Rabbis of the Mishna did not experience what we do today. If they did, their legislation would be in line with the fire department instructions. Since the nature of fire has not changed, we must assume that something else has changed. We can also safely assume that in ancient times there were never any injuries or fatalities as a result of an unattended blaze on Shabbat, or the sages would have altered their ruling accordingly.

Changing Circumstances

This inevitably leads to the conclusion that living conditions have changed since Mishnaic times. In Mishnaic times people lived in stone houses which were not hermetically sealed. They had few possessions and usually the only fire source at night was a candle. If fire got out of control at home, it would die out quickly for lack of fuel. The open holes for windows and chimneys prevented dangerous accumulation of trapped fire or smoke, and when the fire died out, the house itself was intact, albeit covered with soot. This can be attested to by visiting the Burnt House in the Old City of Jerusalem, a stone house which survived the great fire at the time of the destruction of the Temple almost two thousand years ago.

By contrast, in early medieval Europe people lived in tightly built wooden houses. Because of the cold weather they had more clothes, their doors and windows were shut hermetically, and fire was lit in the hearth most of the year. Between the years 1041 and 1452 there were fifteen great blazes in Europe, with an average of one every twenty-seven years. These fires claimed thousands of lives and destroyed partially or completely the cities of Bremen, London, Lubeck, Constantinople, Utrecht, Munich, Berne, Amsterdam, and Gouda. The second fire in Lubeck triggered the use of stone as fire-safe building material.

All these disasters sent a very clear to the Jewish community: you cannot ignore fire, on Shabbat or on any other day. State and city authorities were also becoming more alert to the problem and started creating fire-fighting services, including fines or imprisonment for those who failed to help.

The changing conditions had a powerful impact on the halakhic approach to extinguishing fire on Shabbat. This is evident when comparing the rulings of Maimonides and of Rabbenu Yaakov ben Asher.

Maimonides writes:

דליקה שנפלה בשבת המכבה אותה מפני איבוד ממון חייב שאין איבוד ממון דוחה שבת אלא איבוד נפשות, לפיכך יצאו בני אדם כדי שלא ימותו ויניחו האש תלהט ואפילו שורפת כל המדינה כולה.

If fire broke out on Shabbat, and one extinguished it in order to save property, he is punishable, since only loss of life overrides Shabbat… therefore, people should leave the area to save their lives and let the fire blaze, even if it will burn the whole city.^[1]

Maimonides continues to cite Mishnaic firefighting methods, all indirect, such as wearing a burning garment or blocking the fire with vessels full of water.^[2] He finally provides the only allowance for extinguishing fire on Shabbat – one is allowed to tell his non-Jewish friends that they will not lose if they extinguish the fire, insinuating that he will pay them for their help.^[3]

Maimonides does not even consider a possibility of a fire which evolves from threatening property to threatening life, but Rabbenu Yaakov ben Asher, the Tur, does discuss such a scenario.

In chapter 334 of Orah Hayyim the Tur adheres to the Mishnaic guidelines mentioned above. Several chapters earlier, however, in chapter 329, he writes the following:

כל פיקוח נפש דוחה שבת, והזריז הרי זה משובח! אפילו נפלה דליקה לחצר אחרת וירא שתעבור לחצר זו ויבא לידי סכנה יכול לכבותה כדי שלא תעבור

Saving lives overrides Shabbat, and one should not delay his reaction [or ask for permission]. Even if one is afraid that a fire which broke out in one courtyard will spread to another, he is allowed to put it out.^[4]

I believe that we can clearly see here the way a rabbi’s ruling is influenced by his environment. Maimonides spent most of his life in Morocco and Egypt, and his life conditions were similar to those of Mishnaic times. He is therefore unequivocal in his rejection of any attempt to extinguish the fire unless there is an immediate and evident risk to life. Rabbenu Yaakov ben Asher, who migrated from Germany to Spain, was aware of fatal blazes which were common in Europe and especially in Germany. He knew firsthand or by hearsay that fire is bound to get out of hand, and so he provides a permission to extinguish fire on Shabbat if there is a concern that the fire will spread elsewhere.

We have now seen the complexity of handling fires on Shabbat. On one hand, extinguishing a fire is not punishable because it is preventive rather than creative, while on the other hand there is reluctance to extinguish fire because of its central image in the prohibitions of Shabbat. A similar dichotomy is shown between the detailed laws in Tractate Shabbat which make it all but impossible to extinguish fires on Shabbat, and between this terse yet clear ruling in Tractate Yoma:

מכבין ומפסיקין מפני הדליקה בשבת והזריז הרי זה משובח ואין צריך ליטול רשות מבית דין

One is allowed to extinguish or to block a fire. One should do so without delay and without asking the Bet Din.^[5]

Fatal Fires, New Rulings

We have also seen that the awareness of the dangerous nature of unattended fires rose as Jews migrated to France and Germany, and with a lesser degree, to Spain. There is a clear correlation between the frequency and intensity of great fires in medieval times and the response of the Halakhic authorities. Here are the most salient examples of Halakhic responses in the period of 1050-1450, before new safety measures and firefighting services were established in Europe.

Rabbi Yehudah the Pious writes:

דליקה היתה בשבת, והיה בשכונת יהודים ונכרים, ולא היה ניכר בין ילדי היהודים לילדי הנכרים. והיה שם יהודי, ומגלה הילדים ורואה אם הילד נמול או ערל. אמרו לו, הדליקה נגעה עד הנפש, אדהכי והכי ישרפו? אלא תציל הכל, וחלול השבת שעשו בעבור היהודים, אף על פי שמקצת היו ילדי נכרים, אין להתענות על כך.

There was a fire on Shabbat in a neighborhood of Jews and gentiles. It was impossible to tell apart Jewish and gentile children. One man was trying to check which children are circumcised in order to save them. People scolded him, saying: the fire is threatening lives, are they going to burn [while you are checking the circumcision]? that his actions delay rescue efforts. You should save everyone, and there is no need to fast for the sin of transgressing Shabbat for saving Jews, even though some were gentiles.^[1]

We learn from that description that there were areas where Jews and non-Jews lived together, as well as that Jews were reluctant to transgress Shabbat for non-Jews. However, the author conveys the message that one must do all efforts to save people from a fire.

Rabbi Yitzhak of Vienna, who lived between 1180-1250, suggests an interesting argument for extinguishing fire on Shabbat:

עכו"ם שצרו על עיירות ישראל... באו על עסקי נפשות יוצאין עליהם בכלי זיינם ומחללים עליהם את השבת... מכאן התירו רבותינו לכבות דליקה בשבת, מפני שאנו דרים בין העכו"ם וכשיש דליקה באים ושוללים והורגים. ולא גרע מעיר הסמוכה לספר שמחללין עליה את השבת הילכך שרי כדפרישית בהלכות ערב שבת.

The Talmud says that if gentiles besiege a Jewish settlement to attack and kill, the Jews can fight back and override Shabbat prohibitions. Based on that source our masters allowed extinguishing fire on Shabbat, because we live among the gentiles, and when there is a fire, they come to loot and kill. [This case] is of no lesser status than that of a near-border city for whose protection you can always transgress Shabbat.^[2]

Rabbi Yitzhak’s argument is that one is allowed to defend his life in case he is attacked by murderers. By the same logic, he can extinguish the fire because it might attract potential robbers who will turn into murderers. The argument seems brilliant, but it’s flawed. First, in the case of fire the danger is only potential and not immediate. Second, the risk to Jewish life is only if the Jews try to protect their possessions, but if they followed the ruling of Maimonides, they should have fled, leaving their homes behind.

It is obvious then that Rabbi Yitzhak’s argument is post-facto, and that it comes to justify the actions of people who would extinguish fires indiscriminately.

Rabbi Yom Tov Al-Sevilli, the Ritv”a, who was born on the same year in which Rabbi Yitzhak passed away, does not accept his argument, but still arrives at the same conclusion:

משום הפסד ממון לא שרינן, ועכשיו נהגו ברוב הארצות לכבות דליקה בשבת, ואין להם על מה שיסמוכו. אלא שאומרים שחוששים שתעבור הדליקה כשאין מכבין אותן וישרפו בה תינוקות שלא יוכלו לברוח ולהצילם. ועוד שאם [לא יכבו] יש חשש סכנת נפשות מאימת המלכות והגוים אם יראו שמניחים הדליקה להיות דולקת והולכת. ולפיכך מכבין אליבא דרבי שמעון דקיימא לן כוותיה. ואין היתר ברור בדבר בזה, אלא שזה כאותה שאמרו [תוספתא סוטה, טו:י], הנח להם לישראל מוטב שיהו שוגגים ואל יהו מזידין

It is not allowed to extinguish fire to save property, but now it has become customary in most countries to extinguish fires on Shabbat. They have nothing to rely on, but they say that they are afraid that the fire will spread and claim the lives of babies who are unable to escape. They also say that if they do not extinguish the fire, they might face capital punishment by the government and the gentile neighbors, who will be upset that the Jews allowed the fire to spread. They therefore extinguish the fire, relying on the opinion of Rabbi Shimon [who does not consider it forbidden work] and according to home we rule. The permissibility, however, is not clear, but it is rather of the category of “let them be mistaken rather than be sinners”.^[3]

Rabbi Al-Sevilli presents three arguments which people used to justify firefighting on Shabbat.

• The fire might spread and claim lives.
• Jews might be put to death for not acting.
• Rabbi Shimon holds that extinguishing fire is not a forbidden work and we rule like him.

Rabbi Al-Sevilli does not cite the argument of rabbi Yitzhak of Vienna, and practically rejects all three arguments. The only reason he can find for not stopping people from firefighting on Shabbat is that since they are surely going to “transgress” the prohibition, it is better to leave them uninformed of it. In that manner, the severity of the transgression will be lessened as their act will fall under the rubric of careless or ignorant action rather than criminal action.

It is safe to assume that since in Seville, where Rabbi Al-Sevilli lived, stone was the common building material and heating was not required, there were less cases of fatal fires. However, despite this fact and his disagreement with firefighting on Shabbat, he prefers to ignore what he considers a forbidden action. By doing so, he exempts the people from punishment, in a markedly different ruling from that of Maimonides, who says that they should let the whole city burn down.

Terumat HaDeshen

Finally, towards the end of the period in question, Rabbi Israel ben Petahia Iserlein insists on the obligation of fighting fires, whether at a Jewish or a non-Jewish household.^[1]

נכרים שצרו על עיירות, בזמן שבאו על עסקי נפשות מחללין עליו את השבת אבל על עסקי ממון לא. ובזמן הזה אפילו על עסקי ממון מחללים, דידוע הוא ...[ש]אם לא יניח הישראל לשלול ולבוז ממנו יהרגנו והוי עסקי נפשות.

If gentiles besiege Jewish settlements with the intention of killing [the inhabitants], Shabbat can be transgressed. If their intention is looting, Shabbat cannot be transgressed… [that was true in Mishnaic time] but nowadays Shabbat can be transgressed even if their intention is looting because it is common knowledge that… if the Jew will not let him rob and loot him, the gentile will kill the Jew, so it is an attack with the intention of killing.

ומטעם זה היתר גמור הוא בדליקה שנפלה בשבת, אפילו בבית נכרי, לישראל לילך ולכבות. דהאידנא כשיש דליקה הנכרים הולכים והורגים חס ושלום הישראל אם לא יכבו כמותם, וסכנת נפשות הוא. ואפילו במקום שאינם הורגים, מכל מקום שוללין ובוזזין, והוי סכנת ממון דשרינן אף בבאו על עסקי ממון כדפירשתי.

This is why it is completely permissible to extinguish a fire on Shabbat, even in a gentile’s house, because now when there is a fire the gentiles kill the Jews for not extinguishing the fire as they do… Even if a place where they do not kill, they loot and rob, so it becomes a threat to one’s possessions. In that case it is allowed to extinguish the fire as I previously demonstrated.

וזה דרש מה"ר אהרן הקדוש בפני רבים בפני קהל ועדה, והודיע שיש לישראל לכבות הדליקה אפילו בשבת, דלא אתי לאימנועי חס ושלום והוי סכנת נפשות. ואמר דאדרבה מצוה הוא דהוי כהצלת נפשות, והנשאל הרי זה מגונה כלומר שלא הודיע כבר.

Our holy master, Rabbi Aharon^[2], spoke publicly of that matter and made it clear that Jews must extinguish fire on Shabbat [in all cases]. He explained that limiting the permission will cause people to remain inactive and endanger life, and he added that [extinguishing a fire] is a Mitzvah just like saving lives. He also said that if one asks a rabbi for permission while it is repugnant because this halakha should be publicly known.

ואף כי יש מגמגמים ומערערים לומר דוקא בנפל הדליקה בביתן של ישראל תחילה, דאז איכא סכנת נפשות דדרכם להשליך היהודי לתוך הדליקה במי שיצאת בביתו. אבל בנפל בבית נכרי לא מחללינן דליכא סכנה כלל, וראייה מכמה עיירות שהודלקו ולא נשמע נדנוד סכנה. מכל מקום משם אין ראייה מהנהו, דטובא אשכחן דיש סכנה אפילו נפל לבית נכרי תחילה ופשיטא דמחללין. אמנם הכל לפי ראות עינים והזמן, לפי מה שיתקרב לביתו של ישראל, ותן לחכם ויחכם עוד[3].

Some are hesitant to give such a permission and say that this is only if the fire broke out in a Jew’s house, because the practice was to punish the negligent man in whose house the fire broke out by pushing him into the fire. They claim that if the fire is at a gentile’s house there is no need to transgress Shabbat because there is no danger. As a proof they cite several cases of cities which burnt down, and there was not even a hint of danger [to any Jew]. These cases are no proof because there were many other cases where people were harmed, even when the fire broke out in a gentile’s house, and it is obvious that we transgress [the Shabbat]. It is true that one should always consider the place, the time, and the proximity to a Jew’s house, and “may the wise man do the right thing”.

I presented Rabbi Iserlein ruling in its entirety because while he insists on the obligation to extinguish fires, he never mentions the obvious risk of perishing because of the fire. Rather, he creates three scenarios where the fire would lead to an indirect threat by gentiles:

• Gentiles are coming to rob and will not kill those who resist.
• The gentiles will kill the Jews for being passive and not fighting the fire.
• Gentiles will punish the one in whose house the fire started by pushing him into the fire.

It is important to rely on Rabbi Iserlein’s ruling, but the question remains why he failed to mention the fire itself as a risk. And one more question: would the ruling be different in most cities in Israel where there is an overwhelming Jewish majority?

We will answer these questions shortly but let us consider what we have seen so far: we have discussed the opinions of four great medieval scholars: Rabbi Yehuda the Pious, author of Sefer Hassidim; Rabbi Yitzhak of Vienna, author of Or Zaru’a; Rabbi Yom Tov al-Sevilli, better known as the Ritva; and Rabbi Israel Iserlein, author of Terumat ha-Deshen. They all support firefighting on Shabbat to some extent, with Terumat ha-Deshen, the latest of the four, leaving no room for doubt and rebuking those who consult a rabbi first.

Reversal of Halakha

As we move ahead in time, however, we see a certain reversal of this trend. A century after the sweeping ruling of Rabbi Iserlein in Terumat ha-Deshen, the Rema writes in his addendum to the Shulhan Arukh:

וכל הדינים הנזכרים בדיני הדליקה הני מילי בימיהם, אבל בזמן הזה שאנו שרויין בין עובדי כוכבים והיא חשש סכנת נפשות, כתבו הראשונים והאחרונים ז"ל שמותר לכבות דליקה בשבת משום דיש בה סכנת נפשות, והזריז הרי זה משובח. ומכל מקום הכל לפי הענין, דאם היו בטוחים ודאי שלא יהיה להם סכנה בדבר, אסור לכבות.

All the laws of extinguishing a fire apply to Mishnaic times, but today, as we live among the gentiles and it is a matter of life and death, the early and late scholars wrote that extinguishing the fire is allowed… the faster the better. However, if they are convinced that they are not going to be in danger extinguishing the fire is forbidden. ^[1]

The Rema cites Terumat ha-Deshen but with a little twist: you have to be confident that there is an imminent danger. If not, one who does it will be considered a sinner.

The consequences of the Rema’s phrasing can be disastrous, because for a God-fearing, Shabbat-observing person, even the smallest doubt that what he does is forbidden could stop him dead in his tracks.

Two hundred years after the Rema Rabbi Avraham Danzig, author of the widely accepted Hayye Adam on the Shulhan Arukh, cast another doubt on this ruling:

וצריך עיון... אם מוטב להוציאו לרשות הרבים, דגם זה אינו אלא מדרבנן, או מוטב לכבות הדליקה.

It is not clear if instead of extinguishing the fire it is preferable to drag the burning object to the public domain, for this would only be a rabbinical [prohibition].^[2]

This remark which was left unanswered has surely caused people to think twice when coming to extinguish fire. I found at least one such case in which, luckily, there were no casualties:

On February 22, 2014, at 16 Tara dr. Pomona New York, a fire started in a second-floor bedroom, when a man used a pillow to dim a lamp for a child. The pillow began smoldering, and the fire apparently spread to a mattress, which also smoldered. When the smoke increased, the man took the mattress down the stairs and out of the house. But the mattress caught fire along the way as it gained fresh oxygen. The occupants refused to call the fire department because of Shabbat restrictions, but firefighters responded to an automatic alarm. The public information officer for the Hillcrest Fire Department, Chris Kear, who reported the case, added that the situation could have been a lot worse.

Maharam Schick

Let us return to the rabbinic timeline and examine a ruling by the 19^th century R. Moshe Schick of Huszt, Hungary. Rabbi Schick was asked whether one should repent for extinguishing fire on Shabbat if there was no life-threatening situation.

Rabbi Schick could have answered that there is no need for any of that, relying on an opinion mentioned by several poskim. Among these are Rabbi Avraham Abeli Gombiner, in Magen Avraham^[1] on the Shulhan Arukh, and his commentator, Rabbi Shmuel HaLevi Keln in Mahatzit HaSheqel.^[2] According to them, people who took unnecessary action in case of fire should not be deemed transgressors. They both write that rebuking people for extinguishing a fire could lead to dangerous consequences:

דמשום כיבוי אין המורה רשאי להורות שיתענו המכבים, כל שכן שאין רשאים לגזור תענית על הצבור כהאי גוונא, דאם כן אתה מכשילן לעתיד לבוא בהצלת סכנת נפשות

The Posek is not allowed to rule that those who extinguished the fire should fast, and even more so, one is not allowed to decree a public fast day. By doing so, you put an obstacle in their way, causing them to not save lives in the future.

These poskim cite Havot Yair by R. Chaim Yair Bacharach, who also says ^[3]:

אין להורות כן ומכל שכן לגזור תענית בצבור, והמחמיר אינו אלא מיקל ומן המתמיהין.

One is not allowed to rule so [demanding repentance] and clearly not decree a public fast. One who [thinks he] is stringent is actually lenient and his ruling is weird.

The statement about stringency and leniency is extremely important. R. Bacharach draws our attention to the different ways an act and a ruling can be viewed. Being strict and demanding repentance could cause loss of life, and to allow such a thing is to be lenient.

In any case, after acknowledging those unequivocal opinions, Rabbi Schick writes to the rabbi who presented the question:

...צורבא מרבנן אחד שבשבת קודש היה דליקה אצל חנותו שמתפרנס ממנה בצמצום הוא ואשתו ובניו התלויים בו, ובבהילתו כיבה אש מחמת שהיה בהול על ממונו שחרד שלא ישאר לו דבר לפרנס ביתו. והעם מרננים אחריו וגם לבו דוה עליו, ושואל אם צריך לקבל תשובה? ... לפי דבריך שהעם מרננים אחריו ואיכא חילול השם שצורבא מרבנן יעשה כזאת... צריך להביא הדברים לפני בית דין שבעירו ויאמר 'אנא חטאתי', ויורו לו בית דין כפי הנראה בעיניהם... וכאשר יורו לו המורים ככה הוא מחוייב לעשות וממנו לא יסור

You asked about the young scholar who had fire which broke out near his store. He can barely make a living and he depends on the store to sustain his wife and children. In his anxiety he extinguished the fire because he feared that he will lose his livelihood and will not be able to provide for his family. because he was afraid to lose his family’s livelihood. Now people are badmouthing him and he himself feels. He has come to you to ask if he needs to repent.

According to what you say, people are questioning his actions. It is a desecration of God’s Name for a scholar to act like that… he must present his case to the local Beth Din, confess his sin, and follow the guidance of the Beth Din.^[4]

Rabbi Schick was a very influential leader of Hungarian orthodoxy. It should not come as a surprise that his ruling influenced his successors and disciples. This is especially evident in the insular ultra-Orthodox Hungarian communities of today, who advocate piety and believe that they observe beyond what is necessary. In one case, in August 2011, a sixteen-unit building was burned to the ground in the Hassidic tight-knit community of Kiryat Tosh in Canada. According to officials, the evacuees refused the help of the Red Cross and offered little cooperation to firefighters.

Rabbi Wozner

This practice reflects both the ruling of Rabbi Schick and of his spiritual successors, one of whom is Rabbi Shmuel HaLevi Wozner, who writes:^[1]

הגוים היו חומסים ושוללים בשעת שריפת בתי היהודים. ולפי זה בזמן הזה בארץ הקודש ברוב השטחים שגרים רק יהודים, אין שום היתר לכבות מפני הסכנה, ובפרט בבתים של היום שהם של אבנים. גם לדידן דקיימא לן כרבי שמעון דמלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור... והרבה מזלזלים בזה.

The gentiles would loot and pillage Jewish homes as they were burning. That means that today, in the Holy Land, in most areas populated only by Jews, there is no permission to extinguish fire because of danger. Especially in modern homes which are made of stone. This is even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, whom we follow, that one is exempt from punishment for a work with no practical end^[2]… and many are careless about this [meaning that they di extinguish fire on Shabbat].

ואמנם מכמה מעשים למדתי שיש הבדל בזה גם בזמן הזה, שכל זמן שעדין לא יצאו כל אנשי הבית, ובפרט במציאות שמתפחדים או שאינם יכולים לצאת שהאש לוהט בכל הצדדים, אם כן הכבוי הוא ספק סכנה ממש. אבל אם יכולים לצאת או שיצאו כבר, וקוראים חברת מכבי אש רק להציל הבית והממון אין מקום בזה בהלכה...

Indeed, I have learned from several incidents that there is a distinction even nowadays. If some people did not leave the house, and especially in a case where they are afraid or cannot leave because the fire is burning from all sides, then we can maybe say that extinguishing is to save from danger. But if they can leave now or if they left already, and they call firefighters just to save their house and property, there is no room for this in Halakha.

ובספר תהילה לדוד (אורטינברג) סוף סימן של"ד סעיף קטן מ"ד תמה על מה שכתב בכנסת הגדולה דאם לא יכבנה אל יחסר מהיות שם בעיר זקן או חולה שאינו יכול להתמהמה לברוח ותבא הדליקה עליו, והקשה התהלה לדוד בצדק דאם כן אף בימיהם למה לא היה מותר לכבות, ואף שהמרדכי ריש פרק כל כתבי כתב כעין זה בעבור התינוקות שלא יכלו לברוח, הא כתב באמת שאין להם על מה שיסמכו, והנח להם לישראל, והניח בצריך עיון

The author of Tehila LeDavid (Ortinberg), 334:45 questioned the ruling of Kenesset HaGedolah that if one does not extinguish the fire, he is putting the elderly and the sick of the city. They cannot escape and they will be trapped by the fire. R. Ortinberg argued that according to that argument it should have been allowed to extinguish fire in antiquity. And even though the Mordechai wrote similarly that one can extinguish a fire because [somewhere] there might be children who cannot escape, he himself write that there is no Halakhic ruling to rely on. He concludes that we should let people do what they do [because they would not listen to the Posek] and left the issue with a question mark.

Rabbi Wozner’s ruling, made in the 20^th century, makes extinguishing fire on Shabbat impossible. Even when he speaks of people who are trapped inside the house, he says that there might be a doubt whether extinguishing the fire would be considered saving from danger. He ignores the possibility of the fire spreading to other houses or coming in contact with hazardous materials. He puts aside centuries of halakhic evolution and wants to restore the rulings of the Mishna and Maimonides. He also selectively cites R. Ortinberg who writes in the very next paragraph that when there is even the slightest concern of danger all actions are allowed, even those with practical end – מלאכה הצריכה לגופה. Meaning that not only extinguishing the fire is allowed but all other actions which can help in doing so. For example, if firefighters decide that in order to stop the fire from spreading, they must set fire to a field to create burnt land, then they should do so on Shabbat without hesitation.

How can we explain R. Schick’s harsh stance and R. Wozner’s mindboggling ruling? I believe that it is, paradoxically, a result of changing circumstances. The paradox is that those rabbis refuse to acknowledge any changes from the time of the Mishna until today, but their rulings on are based on the observation of modern reality which has changed because of the rulings of past generations. Following the frequent great blazes which devastated Europe from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries, the authorities established fire safety regulations, they created firefighting services, and started using stone instead of wood as building material. In the Jewish world, meanwhile, changes occurred on two planes:

• Jews were required to comply with the new regulations under threat of financial or even capital punishment.
• Rabbis understood that fires can claim lives and responded by allowing people to extinguish fire on Shabbat without reservations.

The actions of local governments and Halakhic authorities led to a drop in the number and scale of fatal fires. As a result, rabbis in modern times, from the nineteenth century on, decided that fires do not present an imminent threat to life.

Rigid Adherence to Precedence

It is obvious that if medieval rabbis would have said that the guidelines of the Mishnah are no longer applicable to life conditions in the communities they lived in, rabbis of later generations would have been more understanding of the ever-changing reality. But medieval rabbis have never challenged the Mishnaic standards. Rather, they have invented strange scenarios with remote and indirect threat to Jewish life. Why did they take that approach?

The answer is that after the Geonic period many scholars believed that the Sages of the Mishnah were able to anticipate all scenarios. These later scholars would therefore not issue a ruling unless they could find a clear precedence in the rulings of Mishnaic or Talmudic sages. Arguing that fire could be extinguished because it endangers life would not be valid because such argument is not clearly mentioned in the classic sources. The fear of attacks by gentiles, on the other hand, is one that stems which could supported by the Mishnaic discussion of confronting gentile attackers on Shabbat.

This approach of narrow interpretation and extreme adherence to the specific cases and scenarios mentioned in the Mishnah is prevalent in Halakhic literature. It is one of the main reasons for the current Halakhic paralysis. I would like to demonstrate that approach with an example from a totally different field, that of divorces. Here is a case presented by the Tur[1]:

שאלה לאדוני אבי הרא"ש ז"ל באיש המשתטה מדי יום ויום, ואומרת אשתו אבי עני הוא ומחמת דוחקו השיאני לו. וסבורה הייתי לקבל ואי אפשי לקבל כי הוא מטורף, ויראה אני פן יהרגני בכעסו. אין כופין אותו לגרש, שאין כופין אלא באותם שאמרו חכמים שכופין, אלא תפייסנו לגרש או תקבלנו ותזון מנכסיו.

My father, Rabbenu Asher, was asked about a man who has daily bouts of insanity. His wife says: my father was poor and he married me off to him [this man] because of his financial burden. We do not force him to divorce her, because we only do that in the cases mentioned by the Sages. She should rather convince him to divorce her or accept him [as he is] and be sustained by him.

The cases in which the court forces the husband to divorce his wife per her request are mentioned earlier by the Tur:

אלו שכופין אותן בשוטים להוציא וליתן כתובתה: מוכה שחין, וריח הפה, וריח החוטם, והמקבץ צואת כלבים, והבורסקי, והמחתך נחשת מעיקרו. ואפילו היו בו קודם שנשאה וידעה שהיו בו.

In these cases, the court forces the husband [even] with lashes to divorce and pay the Ketubah: a man who has boils, halitosis, or rhinolith, a man who gathers dog urine[2], a tanner, and a copper miner. Even if had or did one of these before they got married and she knew about it.

There are two categories here: men with an unpleasant chronic disease and men whose work causes an intolerable stench. In all these cases the woman claims that she cannot live with the man because of his condition or his work. If the husband refuses to divorce his wife, the court is allowed to use even lashes, if necessary, to force him to do so. This is done even if the woman knew about those conditions at the time at the wedding, and thus cannot claim that had she known she would not marry him. Her argument, rather, is that she thought she could tolerate these conditions but now she realizes that it is impossible.

It is obvious that the Sages did not enumerate all the possible cases of intolerable marital life. A simple logical deduction leads to the conclusion that where there is a permanent factor which makes the woman’s life miserable, she is entitled to a divorce, and that the court is obligated to help her.

In the case brought in front of Rabbenu Asher, a woman was married off by her father to a mentally unstable man. She agreed to the marriage to help her father who was very poor, and she thought she could live with the man. Now the man assaults her daily, and she fears for her life. She tells the rabbi and his court that she was wrong and that she cannot live with the man, and she asks them to force her husband to divorce her. The court turns her down, arguing that her case is not mentioned in the Mishnah. This extreme reliance on Mishnaic precedence leaves the rabbis in their comfort zone and allows them to avoid being innovative, while the woman is confined to a life of misery.

Fire on Shabbat in all-Jewish Areas

Let us return to our discussion. If the only reasons for extinguishing fires on Shabbat were the fear of confrontation with gentile looters or punishment by a gentile government, then extinguishing fire on Shabbat in an all-Jewish city would be forbidden, as R. Wozner rules. R. Wozner, however is in the minority, and most Poskim, Sepharadim and Ashkenazim alike, disagree with him. They argue that even though the fear of gentiles is not present in the State of Israel, a permission was already given by earlier generations. This is what R. Yitzhak Yosef writes in Yalkut Yosef:^[1]

בספר ארחות רבינו הקהלות יעקב (עמוד קסד) כתב, שהחזון איש התיר לכבות דליקה בשבת אף בארץ ישראל, וכפסק הרמ"א. ואף שהרמ"א נתן טעם שאנו שרויים בין הגויים ויש בדליקה סכנת נפשות, מכל מקום מאחר שכבר התיר הרמ"א מטעם פקוח נפש, פסקו קיים אף בארץ ישראל. וכן משמע מדברי המשנה ברורה (סימן שלד ס"ק עג), כמבואר להלן.

In the book Orhot Rabbenu Kehilot Yaakov [Kanefsky] it is written that the Chazon Ish [R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz], following the ruling of the Rema [R. Moshe Iserels]. Even though the Rema explained that he ruled so because we live among the gentiles and our lives are in danger [an argument which does not apply to the State of Israel], since the Rema already allowed it for fear of losing a life, his ruling is valid even in Israel. We can also learn it from the words of the Mishnah Berura.

This argument is intriguing and faulty. It is intriguing because R. Yosef quotes four Ashkenazi poskim and because two of them lived before the establishment of the State of Israel. It is faulty because the Rema did not issue a sweeping permission to extinguish all fires. He rather specifically said that the life-threatening situation is one cause by gentiles, and if so, his ruling cannot be valid in Israel.

Furthermore, the reference to Mishna Berurah is misleading, because R. Yosef insinuates that it is relevant to the question. This is what the Mishna Berurah writes:

בחשש סכנת ספק מותר לכבות - ומזה יצא ההיתר לכבות הדליקה בכל מקום כיון דאפשר אם לא יכבנה אל יחסר מהיות שם בעיר זקן או חולה שאין יכול לברוח ותבוא הדליקה עליו

[The Rema writes] that where there is a slight concern of danger it is allowed to extinguish a fire – from that came the permission to extinguish fires anywhere, because there could always be in the city an elderly or sick person who cannot escape and who will perish in the fire.

The Mishna Berurah was written before the establishment of the State of Israel, and it could not have referred to a reality of cities populated entirely by Jews. What we read here is a sweeping permission to extinguish fires on Shabbat because of the realization that there could always be danger. However, when highlighting the original argument of that permission, that of the danger from gentiles, R. Yosef tries to cover up the problem by misquoting the Mishna Berurah.

This attempt to hide the true reason for the change in Halakah is extremely dangerous. When joined with people’s natural reluctance to handle fire on Shabbat, it causes them to remain inactive and not even call rescue services.

Knowing what we do today about fires there is no room for hesitation or limitations. Even a mild phrasing such as this one, also from Yalkut Yosef, could cause people to refrain from action:

אם נפלה דליקה בשבת, והדבר ברור שאין שם שום חשש סכנת נפשות, אין לכבותה בשבת בידים.

If a fire broke out on Shabbat, and it is clear that there is no danger to human life, one is not allowed to actively extinguish it.^[2]

We must reiterate that there is no such thing as a non-dangerous fire. If fire is not contained it is dangerous. Firefighters reported of cases where flames jumped more than three hundred feet over the protective belt of burnt land and spread uncontrollably.

This unequivocal stance is expressed by R. Eliezer Waldenberg:^[3]

לפי כל הנ"ל משתקף לנו היתר כללי לכיבוי דליקות, בהיות ואין אפוטרופוס לדליקה לדעת מדת הקיפה וסכנתה, ולפעמים מדליקה קטנה יכול חס ושלום להתהוות אסון חמור, כפי שאנו קוראים בהרבה פעמים על כך.

וכדאי לציין לזה דברי הפחד יצחק באות דליקה, מובא גם בנזר ישראל שם, שמביא עובדא שהיה בצרפת באחד ששאל לר' יהודה סיר ליאון שפעם אחת בליל יום כיפור נפל נר אחד בבית הכנסת והתחיל לדלוק והוא קרא לבני הבית שיהיו מכבים, וגער לו ר' יהודה אמר למה לא כבית בעצמך.

According to all this we observe a sweeping permission to extinguish fires, since no can know with certainty the scope of a fire or the danger it poses. At times a terrible disaster can start with a small fire, as we can frequently read [in the news].

It is valuable to mention here Pahad Yitzhak[4], quoted by Nezer Yisrael. He cites a case which was brought to R. Yehudah Messer Leon (12c) in France. A man told the rabbi that a candle fell on the Eve of Kippur in the synagogue and fire started spreading, and that he was calling on the [gentile] servants to extinguish it. R. Yehudah rebuked him and asked: why didn’t you extinguish the fire yourself?

Methodology and Conclusion

In terms of methodology, the case of extinguishing fire on Shabbat teaches us important lessons:

1. In order to understand Halakha, it is imperative to understand the historical, political, and social context of different rulings.
2. Halakha fluctuates over time. The Mishnah ruled that extinguishing fire is forbidden. Medieval rabbis ruled that it is permissible because they understood that reality has changed. Some modern rabbis observed the new reality of less fatal fires and decided that extinguishing a fire would be forbidden. They did not realize that the change occurred because of the rulings of previous generations.
3. The Poskim sometimes arrive at a conclusion which is incongruent with the ruling of the Mishna. They might then cite one reason while actually relying on another to avoid an ostensible deviation from the words of the sages of the Mishna.

Conclusion:

• One should study well government issued instructions and be prepared for cases of emergency.
• One should follow these regulations and do whatever is possible to contain the fire, no matter how small or insignificant it looks.
• If needed, evacuate the premises, and call 911 immediately.