Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 334 - The Laws Pertaining to [Saving Possessions from] a Fire on Shabbos

SECTION 334 The Laws Pertaining to [Saving Possessions from] a Fire on Shabbos (1-29)

1 Our Sages decreed that should a fire break out on Shabbos, one may not rescue any [of his possessions] from it.1 [He may not] even [take objects] to a place into which it is permitted to carry,2 [nor] articles that are permitted to be carried.3

Even [with regard to] food and beverages, one may save only what he needs for that Shabbos alone.4For example, if a fire broke out on Friday night before [one] ate [his Friday night] meal, he may save [enough] food for three meals, [saving] food fit for humans for his family and [animal fodder as feed] for his livestock. [If the fire broke out] in the morning, [he may save] food for two meals, and [if it broke out] in the afternoon, [after he ate the second meal, he may save] food for one meal. [The rationale for these restrictions is that] if one would be permitted to save all of his possessions, there is concern that his preoccupation with saving [his property will] unnerve him and [cause him to] panic, and in his panic to save [his property], he will forget that it is Shabbos and he will extinguish the fire.5

2 With regard to what does the above apply? With regard to [saving the contents of] the house that is currently on fire. By contrast, [the residents of] the nearby houses, who fear that the fire may reach them, may save everything they desire. [The rationale is that since their homes are not on fire,] their preoccupation with saving [their property] will not cause them to be so unnerved that they will forget that it is Shabbos.

They are even permitted to save money and other important articles that are muktzeh. Similarly, [such leniency is also granted to enable a person to] carry [such articles] to save them from thieves, from the servants of the ruler who come to search [people’s] chests, or from other similar situations. [The rationale is that our Sages] did not enact any decrees pertaining to carrying articles that are muktzeh in instances where there is the possibility of a substantial loss6 except when it is possible to save [these articles] in another manner. For example, if a person forgot a wallet in the street, he is forbidden to bring it to his home, even in a town encompassed by an eruv,7because he can have a watchman [guard the wallet] there or he can guard it [there] himself,8 as stated in sec. 266[:18]. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

[Nevertheless,] there are authorities who forbid carrying articles that are muktzeh even when there is a possibility of substantial loss and it is impossible to save [one’s property] in any other way. Fundamentally, the halachah follows their view.9

Nonetheless, there are authorities who maintain that it is permissible to save money and the like from a fire or from thieves, because a person panics over [the loss of] his money and will certainly [endeavor to] save it from being lost. If [one] is not permitted to save it by carrying articles that are muktzeh, he will [inevitably] come to violate other more severe prohibitions, [i.e.,] he will extinguish the fire, dig and bury [the money] in the ground, or [perform] other similar [prohibited activities].10

(Even though [the person] would be able to save [his money] merely [by moving it], because he panics and is unnerved about saving it, he will rush to save it by any means that immediately presents itself even though a severe transgression is involved. [In self-justification, the person] will say, “No matter how I save [my money], I will [in any event] not be acting in a permitted manner, [so I may as well do so in the most expeditious manner possible].”11 By contrast, when he is permitted to save [his money] by carrying it, he will not save it by performing a severe transgression.)

For this reason, there are authorities who even permit one to take [his money from his home] via a karmelis, as stated in sec. 301[:40]. Since, however, many authorities take issue with this leniency, leniency should only be shown with regard to the prohibition against moving [muktzeh. This leniency may be applied] because there are authorities who maintain that [our Sages] did not at all enact the decree against carrying muktzeh in a situation where there is a significant loss.12 With regard to [carrying in] a karmelis, however, no leniency at all may be shown.13

Moreover, even with regard to merely carrying [muktzeh], leniency should be shown only with regard to those homes close to the fire. With regard to the house that is on fire, by contrast, even regarding [saving] food, it is forbidden to save more than [food] for three meals.14 How much more so [is it forbidden to save] money [from a fire]!

All the above applies with regard to [saving one’s valuables from] a fire, thieves, and the like, [i.e.,] situations that arouse panic ([where the person] is very harried about saving [his money] from these [hazards). [Different rules apply,] by contrast, if rain falls on [his] merchandise that is muktzeh.15 Since the situation does not arouse that much panic, there is no concern that he will seek to save [his merchandise] by [violating] a severe prohibition if he is forbidden to move it. Hence, in this and similar situations, leniency was only granted to have it moved by a non-Jew if a severe loss is involved, as explained in sec. 307[:12].16

3 Once a person has already saved bread made from fine flour for three meals, he may not go back and save bread made from coarse flour.17 If, however, he has only saved bread made from coarse flour, he may go back and save bread made from fine flour because he can act with guile and say, “I desire bread made from fine flour.” Similarly, one may act with guile and save [food for] three meals from all types [of food]. If [the person first] saved meat for three meals, he can save fish afterwards [for these meals], saying, “I desire fish.” The same applies with regard to all other types [of food].

Even if [a person] has food to eat for the entire Shabbos at another place, he may save enough for three meals from the fire. In addition, even if [the homeowner] saved much [food], each of the members of his household is permitted to save food for three meals, even though they have [sufficient food] to eat from what the [first] person [originally] saved.18

4 Food may be saved on Yom Kippur for Shabbos, i.e., if Yom Kippur falls on Friday [and a fire breaks out in his home that day, food may be saved on Yom Kippur for one’s Shabbos meals]. True, at present, according to the fixed calendar we follow,19 Yom Kippur will never fall on Friday. Nevertheless, [this law] also [has contemporary relevance. For example, if Yom Kippur] falls on Thursday and one knows that he will not be able to find [food] to purchase on Friday, [if a fire breaks out in his home] on Yom Kippur, he may save [food for] three Shabbos meals.

By contrast, [if a fire breaks out] on Shabbos,20 one may not save food for [the night following] Yom Kippur,21 nor for a festival,22 nor for the coming Shabbos. One may, however, save food for one meal [if a fire breaks out] on Yom Kippur for the night following Yom Kippur,23 because of his distress.24

5 [The same measure of food] is saved for a sick or old person25 or for a glutton26 as for an ordinary person.27

6 The restriction against saving more than [the food necessary] for three meals applies only when one removes [food from the house], returns, and takes out [more food]. When, by contrast, one removes all [the food] at once, he is permitted [to take out as much as he can carry],28 provided he does not [take the food out] in many containers, only in one. For this reason, one may save a basket filled with loaves [of bread] even though it contains [enough bread for] a hundred meals, a [large] cake of figs, and a barrel of wine. Even if one spreads out his garment, brings food, places it in it, and then brings [more food], places [it in the garment,29 and then carries it all out at once], it is permitted. Even though [the person] must take the trouble to gather [the food] and put it in the garment many times, it is not significant. Since he takes it out [from the burning building] all at once, he is considered as having saved [food] only once.

Even if the foods were in different containers and [the person] poured them out into the [one] garment, it is permitted. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to place several containers that are filled with food in a garment and take them out [in his garment. The rationale is that, in this instance, the food] is being held in different containers and [our Sages] permitted saving only one container [of food].30

7 Just as [the homeowner himself] is not permitted to save more than [food for] three meals, so too, others may not save [any more than this amount] for him. [The homeowner] is, however, permitted to tell [others]: “Come and save [food] for yourselves,”31 even though [the homeowner] knows that they will return [the food] to him [afterwards]. [This leniency is granted] provided that none of these people will save more than [food for] three meals [unless they do so] in one container. True, [these other people] do not panic because of the fire to the extent that [there is concern] that they will extinguish it.32 Nevertheless, the Sages did not make any distinctions [in the application of their decrees].33

If [these people] desire, they can acquire [the food] they take for themselves, for [when the owner] told them “Save [food] for yourselves,” he declared it ownerless with regard to them. [Thus,] they are acquiring ownerless property.

If they are G‑d-fearing and do not desire to acquire it [as their own] since they know that [the owner] did not willingly declare it ownerless, but instead, they desire to return it to the owner and receive payment for the trouble they took to save it, they have that option.

The prohibition against receiving wages [for work performed on] Shabbos34does not apply here. [The rationale is that, in truth,] all [the food] belongs to them, because they acquired ownerless property. [When they return it to the owner,] they are forgoing [payment for] anything more than their wages. They are not, however, forgoing their wages. [That money] is rightfully theirs, for they are acquiring it from what was declared ownerless. Therefore, the money that they receive is not considered as wages [for work performed on] Shabbos.

[All the same,] it is pious conduct not to accept a wage for taking the trouble to save [property] on Shabbos even though it is not considered as Shabbos wages, for a pious person should forgo his [gain] in all matters that have the slightest trace of a transgression.

If, however, the owner did not tell them, “Save [food] for yourselves,” they are not permitted to acquire [the food] for themselves at all, although they desire to do so, [and] even though [the owner] is not permitted to save any more [food for himself. The rationale is that since the owner did not invite others to take the food, the fact that he is forbidden to take more himself] does not cause [the food] to be deemed ownerless, because [the owner] did not yet despair of [recovering the food]. He could still say [to himself], “I will still find people who will save [the ownerless food] for themselves and [then] return it to me [at no cost].” Therefore, the others who save the food are not entitled to receive payment, for the payment is Shabbos wages, since they did not acquire ownerless property.

8 [The homeowner] may save any utensils he needs that day, (i.e., for these three meals), e.g., cups and pitchers (and similarly, other items used for meals).

9 All [the above leniencies granted for] saving [one’s property only apply when] one brings it to another courtyard that is encompassed by [the same] eruv as [the one in which one’s own house is located], but not to [another] courtyard that is not encompassed by that eruv. Needless to say, one may not bring [the property being saved] into a karmelis, for [our Sages] did not release a Rabbinic prohibition to enable [one to partake of the] three Shabbos meals; [they released] only [the restriction against] saving [one’s property].

10 All the above applies with regard to food and utensils that must be taken by hand. [Different rules apply] with regard to clothes, [since] it is possible to wear them. One is permitted to put on and robe himself with as many garments as he can. He may [thus] remove [the garments from the burning area], take them off, and then return and put on [others] and remove them, [continuing in this manner] even throughout the entire day. [The rationale for this leniency is that] since he was permitted to save [the garments] only by wearing them, he will remember [the Shabbos prohibitions] and will not come to extinguish [the fire. Indeed,] when wearing [garments], one is even permitted to take them out to the public domain.35

([This leniency applies] even when one is wearing garments in a manner that he would not wear them during the week, for example, [wearing] two belts, one on top of another. Even though there are authorities who maintain that the second [belt] is considered a burden, as explained in sec. 301[:42, and is therefore forbidden to be worn], nevertheless, in the case of a fire, leniency was granted.)

One may [also] tell others, “Come and save for me.”36 They may put on everything they can wear and robe themselves with everything they can robe themselves, remove [these garments from the burning home], take them off, and then return and put on [others] and remove them.

11 There are authorities who maintain that the prohibition against saving [food for] more than three meals and the utensils necessary for the present day37 applies only when one saves [the articles by taking them to] a courtyard that is encompassed by [the same] eruv [as the burning home,] or a lane that is encompassed by [the same] eruv.38[These domains] are close to a public domain and are also roofless, [thus] they somewhat resemble a public domain.

However, if [one saves the food and utensils by taking them to] another house that is encompassed by the same eruv [as the burning home, these authorities maintain that] one may take out whatever he desires to [the other house]. Moreover, even when taking [articles] out to a courtyard, restrictions were placed only on a courtyard belonging to another person which is encompassed by the same eruv [as the courtyard belonging to the person whose home is burning]. Even though [such] an eruv was established, [these restrictions apply. However, no such restrictions apply] to one’s own courtyard, for which an eruv is not at all necessary. One may bring anything that he desires [from the burning home into his own courtyard].

Other authorities [differ and maintain] that absolutely no distinctions were made with regard to the above. [Their rationale is that] since the prohibition was [instituted] out of concern that one might extinguish [the fire], what difference does it make [whether one takes the articles out] to a courtyard or to a house, to someone else’s courtyard or to one’s own courtyard? Weight should be given to their words.39

12 All holy texts may be saved from a fire.40

In the era of the Sages of the Talmud, only the 2441 Books [of the Tanach] were permitted to be written down. [Such license] was not granted with regard to the Oral Law,42 nor to all the blessings43 and prayers ordained by our Sages. Rather, they were all [to be conveyed] orally. Moreover, even the 24 books [of the Tanach] were44 only permitted to be written on [parchment made from] the hide of a kosher animal, in the Ashuri script,45 in the Holy Tongue,46 and with ink.47 The [Tanach] could not, however, be: written on paper; with ordinary writing; nor in another language, not even Aramaic48 – all translations were made orally, by heart;49 nor in other tints;50 as stated in sec. 32[:4] with regard to tefillin. If holy texts were written in another script or in another language, it was forbidden to read them even during the week.51 They were to be put in an open and abandoned place52 where they would degenerate as a matter of course, together with the mention of G‑d’s name in that writing or that language.53 Therefore, [such texts] were not to be saved on Shabbos from a fire,54 nor from (water), nor from [any] other factor that could bring about their destruction, for they were forbidden to be carried. ([Indeed,] even during the week [such texts] were not to be saved; rather, they were to be left to be obliterated [as a matter of course].)

[Different rules applied,] however, if [texts] were written in the Holy Tongue and in the Ashuri script on paper or with other tints. Although it was forbidden to read [these texts] even during the week, it was, nevertheless, [required] that they be saved on Shabbos from a fire, because of the names of G‑d recorded in them.55 [The only] exception was the Scroll of Esther, in which G‑d’s name is not mentioned because it was sent to be recorded in the chronicles of Persia and Media. Accordingly, it was not considered as having any holiness unless it was written [on parchment and with ink,] as mandated by law.

All the above applied in the Talmudic era. In the present time – based on the verse:56 “It is a time to act for G‑d, [therefore,] they overturned Your Torah” – [the Sages] permitted all the Books [of the Tanach, and] even the [works of] the Oral Law, and all the blessings and prayers to be written [without the requirements mentioned above], because the intellectual capacity57 [of the Jewish people] has been reduced and forgetfulness has increased.58 Therefore, [such texts] may be saved from fire and from all open and abandoned places on Shabbos.

Similarly, based on [the verse], “It is a time to act for G‑d…,”59 [the Sages] permitted writing even the 24 Books [of the Tanach] in Aramaic, as well as in other languages, and with any script, [even] on paper. [The rationale for relaxing the above restrictions is that] not every person is capable of writing in the Ashuri script. Also, not everyone understands the Holy Tongue, nor is it within the financial capacity of everyone to purchase parchment.60 [Since license was granted to have these texts written,] they may therefore also be saved from fire and from all open and abandoned places.

Nevertheless, even in the present era, it is forbidden to [write theBooks of the Tanach] with different tints, since it is [just as] easy to purchase the [required] ink as [the] other tints. If [the Books of the Tanach] were written with such tints, it is forbidden to read them even during the week.61 Nevertheless, they should be saved from a fire and from all open and abandoned places because of the names of G‑d recorded in them,62 with the exception of the Scroll of Esther, in which G‑d’s name is not mentioned.

When does the above [restriction against other tints] apply? When [the Books of the Scripture] were written in the Ashuri script and in the Holy Tongue. When, however, they were written in other scripts or in other languages, it is permitted to write them even with other tints. Hence, one may read them and save them.

All of the above only applies with regard to the 24 Books of the Written Law. Other books [i.e., books of the Oral Law, blessings, and prayers] are permitted to be written with other tints under all circumstances. [Similarly, it is permitted to] read them and save them [from a fire on Shabbos].63

13 [Even] in the present era, license to write [Torah texts] in other languages was granted only when people are fluent in that language. If, however, they do not understand it, it is forbidden to write [Torah texts] in that language. If (the 24 Books [of the Tanach] or works of the Oral Law) [were written in such languages], it is forbidden to read them or save them. [The rationale is that] license [to write the Torah] was granted only because [of the principle implied by the verse,] “It is a time to act for G‑d….” And when the people do not understand [that language, the principle implied by the verse,] “It is a time to act for G‑d…” does not apply.64

(Similarly, it is forbidden to write any of G‑d’s names that are forbidden to be erased65 or Scriptural verses in amulets66 or in other situations where [the principle implied by the verse,] “It is a time to act for G‑d…” does not apply.) [This restriction applies] even when [the names of G‑d or verses] are written in the Ashuri script, in the Holy Tongue, with ink, and on parchment. For license to write down the Torah was granted only when writing an entire book [of the Tanach], and not to writing selected passages.67 [Exceptions were made] only because of [the principle implied by the verse,] “It is a time to act for G‑d…,” as will be stated in Yoreh Deah, sec. 283.68 Therefore, one may not read from them, nor may they be saved from a fire on Shabbos,69because they are not considered as holy writings. (They should, however, be saved from [torrents of] water or from other factors that might cause their destruction,70 because it is not forbidden to carry them. For, as stated in sec. 308[:71], even an amulet whose reliability has not been proven71 is permitted to be carried.) Accordingly, the Sages said that those who write amulets [containing verses] and all others who also write [verses], concerning which [the principle implied by the verse,] “It is a time to act for G‑d…” does not apply, are comparable to those who burn the Torah, for the [documents on which these verses were written] will not be saved from a fire on Shabbos, but [rather] will be left to burn.

There are other authorities, however, who maintain that it is permitted to write [G‑d’s name and Scriptural verses in amulets and the like] and save them [on Shabbos. The rationale is that since] license was granted to write G‑d’s name for blessings, Scriptural verses in the Siddurim, and supplicatory prayers based on [the principle implied by the verse,] “It is a time to act for G‑d…,” license was similarly granted for them to be written in amulets and other places even though [the principle implied by the verse,] “It is a time to act for G‑d…” does not apply, provided that they are not written in a place where they can be dishonored, e.g., a letter, as will be stated in Yoreh Deah, sec. 276.72 Fundamentally, the halachah follows the first approach.

14 Priority is given to saving [texts of] the Written Law over [texts of] the Oral Law.73

15 When a Torah scroll has [partially] worn out or [the letters of the scroll have] been [partially] erased, but [the scroll] still contains 85 whole letters [scattered in different places throughout the Torah parchment],74 its holiness remains intact even though it does not contain G‑d’s name [among these 85 letters,] and it should be saved [from fire75 and other causes of destruction. The rationale is that] there is an entire book of the Torah that is composed of only 85 letters, i.e., the passage Vayehi binsoa haaron, which is considered an entire book unto itself.76

[The above applies] provided the 85 letters comprise entire words, even though they are scattered [over the entire Torah parchment]. If, however, any word is lacking [even] one letter, the remaining letters [of that word] are not counted in the sum of 85 letters. [Also,] if such a Torah scroll contains one mention of G‑d’s name intact, it should be saved only for the sake [of that one name], even though the remainder is entirely erased and worn out.

16 Aramaic words that are contained in Scripture, e.g., yagar sahadusa77and kidena teimrun lihom,78 that were written in [the letters of] the Holy Tongue, are, nevertheless, counted79 and included in the reckoning of 85 [letters].

17 Every article that is to be saved because of its holiness may even be saved [by bringing it] to a courtyard that is not encompassed by an eruv80or to a lane81 that is not encompassed by a shituf.82 [This leniency is granted] provided [these domains] meet all the other requirements [for a private domain],83 i.e., [they possess] three walls and a lechi84or a korah.85[The rationale is that our Sages] ruled leniently regarding [saving] holy writings [by bringing them into a courtyard or a lane] only when the requirements of an eruv or a shituf are lacking, but not when any of the other requirements [that define] a lane or a courtyard are lacking.

18 The carrying case86 for a Torah scroll may be saved together with the scroll, and the carrying case for tefillin may be saved together with the tefillin. [This leniency applies] even when [the Torah scroll or tefillin] is brought to a courtyard that is not encompassed by an eruv and even when there are coins87 in [the carrying case].88 It is not necessary to shake out the coins, because perhaps in the interim, the fire will intensify and he will not be able to save [these sacred objects] at all.

Similarly, if tefillin were placed in a purse filled with money, [the purse] can be saved because of fire or because of thieves and robbers,89 [and taken to] any place where it is permitted to save tefillin. One is not required to remove the tefillin from [the purse] – even if he ([had] a non-Jew) place the tefillin90 in it on Shabbos.91 It is necessary that the placement be performed by a non-Jew because] a Jew is forbidden to hide tefillin in [such a purse on Shabbos,] since it is impossible not to move [the purse] somewhat [when placing the tefillin in it], and [that would be forbidden because the purse] serves as a base for the coins it contains.92 Nevertheless, initially, it is forbidden to have tefillin placed in [a purse] at the time of a fire so that it will be saved together with the tefillin. [After all, carrying the purse] was permitted only out of concern that perhaps the person would not be able to save the tefillin if he was required to remove them from [the purse]. How then could [one] be allowed to place [the tefillin] there initially [on Shabbos at the time of the fire]?

One may, however, place [tefillin in a purse] on Friday so that he would be permitted to take it out with [the tefillin] on Shabbos to a courtyard that is not encompassed by an eruv, should a fire break out or because of [his fear of] thieves and robbers. [This is permitted because the tefillin] are placed [in the purse] at a time when one is permitted to do so. Similar laws apply with regard to a mezuzah93or a Torah text.

[Such license is not granted,] however, if one places (a ring or) food in a purse. It is not [permitted] to save [the purse] from the house where the fire is burning, even to a courtyard encompassed by the same eruv.94 [The reason for the prohibition is that] (the ring or) the food is not considered as important in relation to the purse. [Hence,] they are considered as secondary to it. Therefore, even if it is impossible to shake them out from the purse, one is not permitted to take the purse for their sake. Instead, they should be left to burn together with the purse.

There are authorities95 who, even as an initial preference, permit placing a loaf [of bread] or a child – or any article that is permitted to be saved [and taken to] a courtyard encompassed by an eruv – on [a purse] at the time of a fire. Even though the purse is much more valuable than [that article], one may take it in this manner from the burning house to a courtyard encompassed by an eruv.

True, [the Sages] granted license [to carry an object] via a loaf [of bread] or a child only [to save] a corpse,96 as stated in sec. 311[:7]. Nevertheless, because of the loss [that would be caused by] a fire, [our Sages] granted leniency, as they did with regard to a corpse, [allowing] the purse to be considered as secondary to the permitted article that is on it. Thus, it is like [one] is saving only a permitted article. One may rely on this [ruling] and adopt a lenient stance in the instance of severe loss, [because it merely involves] a Rabbinic decree.

All the above applies to the house that is on fire. With regard to the nearby houses, by contrast, there are authorities who permit one to carry even articles that are muktzeh by themselves97 in the event of a severe loss. This [leniency] also applies when one is fearful of robbers, as stated above.98

19 There are authorities who permit instructing a non-Jew to save Torah texts by taking them out even [when it is necessary to do so] via the public domain. [These authorities maintain that our Sages] did not impose a restrictive decree on giving instructions to a non-Jew in a situation that may well lead to the degradation of sacred texts.99 [True, a Jew] was not permitted to save [such texts] by taking them out via a karmelis100 even though [carrying them into that domain] is forbidden as a shvus only by Rabbinic decree. Nevertheless, a shvus performed by a Jew is not comparable to the shvus of giving instructions to a non-Jew.101

20 If the blank marginal portions [of a Torah scroll, i.e., those] above and below [the columns,] those between one passage and another, between one column and another, or between one book and another, were cut off from the scroll, [these pieces of parchment] may not be saved [from a fire on Shabbos].102 So, too, if the letters of a scroll were erased and 85 letters did not remain [on the parchment, the scroll may not be saved.]103

21 Holy texts written104 by heretics, i.e., those who are devoted to false deities, and similarly, apostates to false deities – even though they are written in the Ashuri script, in the Holy Tongue, on parchment, and with ink – may not be saved.105 Even during the week, such texts should be burnt, including the names of G‑d contained in them.106 [The rationale is that] since [these people] are devoted to false deities, it is certain that they wrote these texts for the sake of these false deities.107

On this basis, warning should be given regarding those coins of gold and silver on which non-believers imprinted G‑d’s four-letter name for the sake of [their] false deity. It is forbidden to hang such coins [as ornaments] nor may one retain [such coins] in his possession.108 Instead, one should melt them down immediately, so that there will be no trace left of the deeds [the non-believers] performed for the sake of [their] false deity. For this same reason, all their texts with the names of G‑d in them should be burnt.

22 When fire catches on to one side of a chest, it is permitted to spread a goatskin that is permitted to be carried – based on the principles explained in sec. 308[:58]109 – over it in a place close to the fire so that the fire will not spread further,110 for a goatskin will char, but will not burn, and [thus it] will protect the chest.

It is permitted to make a partition from all types of containers, whether empty or full, to stop the fire [from spreading. Moreover,] because of the [potential] loss, [our Sages] did not enact a decree [preventing] one from causing the fire to be extinguished [by placing] new earthenware containers filled with water [in the fire’s path], even though they will not be able to bear the [heat of the] fire and will [inevitably] break, [allowing the water inside to spill out] and extinguish the fire. [The rationale for the leniency is that] at the time [the person] places the water [in the fire’s path], there is a substance intervening between the fire and the water, i.e., the walls of the container in which the water is placed. It is the fire itself that breaks the container and [thereby the fire] extinguishes itself. The person who places the water there does no more than act as an [indirect] cause, as explained in sec. 265[:8].111

23 When fire has already taken hold of one side of a garment, it is permitted to pour liquids slightly distant from the fire so that they will extinguish the fire when it reaches there.112 [This is permitted because] although there is nothing [separating] between [the liquids] and the fire,113 nevertheless, [the liquids] do not extinguish the existing fire. They merely prevent the fire from spreading further, and [for lack of additional fuel,] it burns itself out.

To what does the above apply? To liquids that do not whiten. It is, however, forbidden to place water or any other liquids that whiten on a garment, either because of a decree lest one wring out [the liquids from the garment] or because [the very act of] soaking [such] a garment in liquids constitutes laundering it, as mentioned in sec. 302[:21]114 and sec. 319[:13].115

24 When a folded garment catches fire, one may unfold it and put it on so that the fire will not spread any further. Even if the [fire on the] portion [of the garment] that already caught fire might be extinguished as a result of [the person’s] action, that is of no consequence, because that is not the person’s intent nor is it an inevitable consequence116 [of his actions]. For this reason, one should not run, jump, or shake [the garment] in this or that direction so that [the fire] will be extinguished.117 Instead, [the person] should [merely] put on [the garment] in the ordinary manner.

Similarly, if a Torah scroll catches fire, one should roll it open and read from it so that the fire will not spread any further. Even though, as a result of [the person’s] action, the fire that is already burning [a portion of the scroll] might be extinguished, that is not of any consequence, provided [the person] does not shake [the scroll back and forth] in different directions.118

25 It is forbidden to tell a non-Jew to extinguish a fire because of financial loss.119 [This stringency applies] even: a) according to the authorities who maintain that [performing] a melachah she’einah tzerichah legufah, a forbidden labor which a person performs for a purpose that does not involve the object with which the forbidden labor was performed, is forbidden only according to Rabbinic decree, and extinguishing a fire is a melachah she’einah tzerichah legufah, as explained in sec. 278[:1];120 and b) in the event of a great loss, license can be granted to permit giving instructions to a non-Jew when the act is only forbidden to a Jew by Rabbinic decree, as explained in sec. 307[:12]. Nevertheless, in the instance of a fire, [stringency is required. The rationale is that] the situation causes much panic, and [the person] will be very anxious to save his money, and he [may] lose self-control. If [the person] is permitted to do anything [to save his money], he will not consider [any of the restrictions] and may extinguish the fire himself.

(Indeed, for this reason, it is forbidden to have a non-Jew save more than the food for three meals and the [eating] utensils [the person] needs for the day from the house that is burning, as stated above.)121 It is, however, permitted to instruct a non-Jew to extinguish [the fire] for the sake of the holy texts [in the burning house],122 if there is no other way to save them.

26 When a non-Jew comes to extinguish [a fire] on his own initiative, there is no need to admonish him.123 [The rationale is that] the non-Jew has the capacity to make his own decisions and decide that it is to his benefit [to extinguish the fire] because he will profit from doing so, either immediately or afterwards. Thus, [the non-Jew] has his own benefit in mind. Even if he is the Jew’s servant, hired by him on a time basis, there is no necessity to admonish [the non-Jew] for the reason stated in sec. 244[:11].124

When, by contrast, a minor comes to extinguish the fire, it is necessary to admonish him,125 even if he has not reached [the age when it is fitting to] educate him [in the observance of the mitzvos].126[This applies] even if [the child’s] father is not present. [The rationale is that] a minor does not have the understanding to make decisions on his own [so it cannot be said that] he is acting for his own benefit.127 Instead, [the minor is acting because] he knows that the fire will cause a loss to his father (or to another Jew), and in all probability, he extinguishes it in order to bring [that person] pleasure.128

When, by contrast, a minor desecrates the Shabbos for his own benefit, only his father is required to admonish him if he has reached [an age when he is fit to] be educated [in the observance of mitzvos], as will be stated in sec. 343[:1-2].129

27 In the instance of a fire, license was granted to declare in the presence of a non-Jew,130 “Whoever extinguishes [the fire] will not suffer a loss.” If a non-Jew is not present [at the place of the fire to hear this declaration], he may be called there and this statement may be made in his presence,131 as stated in sec. 307[:33].132

28 There are authorities who maintain that all [acts] forbidden by our Sages regarding a fire [that broke out] were forbidden only in their time, when the Jews did not dwell among non-Jews. [Indeed, in the Talmudic era,] even when [Jews lived] in exile, they lived in their own neighborhoods. In the present era, by contrast, [different laws apply with regard to] those [Jews] who live among non-Jews. There is a threat of mortal danger when the fire intensifies, for then [the non-Jews] seize [property] and pillage. When the person will rise to defend his property, [the non-Jews] will kill him.133 [Therefore,]134it is permitted [for adult Jews] to extinguish the fire on Shabbos, even if the fire is burning in the house of a non-Jew. For there is concern that the fire will increase in intensity and [the non-Jews] will come to seize [property], pillage, and murder. [Hence,] anyone who eagerly and wholeheartedly extinguishes [the fire] is praiseworthy.135 Nevertheless, every [situation must be judged] according to the [prevailing] circumstances. If [the people in a certain region] are totally confident that [a ravaging fire will not lead to a situation involving] mortal danger, it is forbidden to extinguish [the fire on Shabbos]. If, however, there is concern that [a situation involving] mortal danger [might arise], it is permitted to extinguish [the fire].136 This is the prevailing custom.

Nevertheless, leniency was granted only with regard to extinguishing a fire, for it is a melachah she’einah tzerichah legufah137 and there is a threat of mortal danger if it is not extinguished. It is, however, forbidden to desecrate the Shabbos in order to save one’s financial resources, even by [performing] a melachah she’einah tzerichah legufah or even by violating a prohibition that is fundamentally of Rabbinic origin, e.g., the prohibition of [going beyond] the Shabbos limits.

If one transgressed and desecrated [the Shabbos for financial reasons],138 atonement is required. The atonement agreed upon by the later authorities is that the person should fast for 40 days,139 [doing so] even though they are not [necessarily] consecutive, but rather, [fasting only on] Mondays and Thursdays. [The person] should not eat meat nor drink wine on the night following the [daytime] fast, and [furthermore, he] should give eighteen peshutim140 to charity in compensation for a sin-offering if he became liable for [such an offering]. This amount is equivalent to the sela [mentioned in the] Torah. The amount equivalent to a sela in our coinage will be explained in Yoreh Deah, sec. 305;141 consult that source.

If [the person] desires to redeem the fast,142 [he may do so] by giving an amount equivalent to twelve peshutim143 for every [fast] day144 if he has the [financial] capacity.145 A rich person should give more, each person according to his financial capacity. The motivating principle for [the differing amounts for] the redemption [of a fast] is that the discomfort of [paying] the money substitutes for the discomfort of a fast. And for a rich person, 100 maneh146is the same as a perutah147for a poor person. Whether a person may postpone [such] a fast until the winter days148 will be explained in sec. 568.149

All the above refers to one who desecrates the Shabbos to save his money. When those who, by contrast, desire to be stringent with themselves and repent for extinguishing a fire in situations where there is a threat of mortal danger, they should not be allowed to do so, so that they will not refrain from extinguishing [fires in the future].

29 According to Scriptural Law, [the forbidden labor of] extinguishing does not apply with regard to metal that glows like a coal, since it does not burn.150 Nevertheless, it is forbidden to extinguish [a glowing piece of metal] according to Rabbinic Law. However, it is permitted to extinguish it if it is located in a place where it could cause injury to many people,151 because [our Sages] did not apply their decrees in an instance where [the possibility of] many people [suffering] physical injury could arise.

In contrast, [the Scriptural prohibition against] extinguishing does apply to a coal [produced] from wood. Even if it is located in a place where it could cause injury to many people, it is forbidden to extinguish it,152 according to the authorities who hold one liable for performing a melachah she’einah tzerichah legufah.153 [The rationale is that] a Scriptural prohibition is never released except in situations where there is a threat to life.

By contrast, according to the authorities who maintain that performing a melachah she’einah tzerichah legufah is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law, it is permitted to extinguish a coal [produced] from wood even if it is located in a place where it could cause injury [but not death] to many people. [The rationale is that our Sages] did not apply their decrees in a situation where there is a threat of physical injury, even though they did apply [their decrees] in an instance where there will be financial loss. Fundamentally, the halachah follows this approach.154 (Nevertheless, all meticulous people should be stringent with regard to their own conduct.)155