We Need To Start The Fire

The Gemara records a fundamental dispute between Reish Lakish and Rebbe Yochanan regarding damages caused by fire. Is fire to be viewed as a possession that one has a duty to safeguard? Or do we view fire as an extension of a being’s power? Rebbe Yochanan holds the latter view. The terminology the Gemara employs is “Isho mishum chitzo.” If a person lights a destructive fire, it is analogous to shooting an arrow. Though the arrow may travel far, the shooter is responsible for whatever damage is caused. Likewise, though a fire may burn an item some distance from the point of ignition, an arsonist can be held liable for the damages caused by his act.

The Nemukei Yosef raises the following question: For a person to be held liable for the damage of fire, according to Rebbe Yochanan, we must view every particle of every item ignited as if it were lit by the person who started the fire. That being said, how can someone light candles on erev Shabbos? The candles will burn through Shabbos. It will be considered that every drop of wax or oil being consumed is currently being lit by the person who started the fire, which is a violation of the Laws of Shabbos! Should we institute a ban on the lighting of Shabbos candles?

Obviously not, says the Nemukei Yosef. It is true that we attribute anything consumed by a fire as if it were ignited by the person who started the fire. That attribution takes place, though, at the time the fire was lit. If a person commits arson and a structure is destroyed, we say that his lone act of ignition lit the whole building simultaneously. Yes, the Jewish mother is responsible for the many virtual acts of ignition that consume her Shabbos candles. But those acts of ignition are deemed to have taken place on erev Shabbos.

The Ketzos HaChoshen says that this is analogous to the discussion in a previous article of mine. Once an object is set upon a path of destruction, it is viewed as already being destroyed. The example discussed was a crystal vase being dropped from a rooftop. The moment the vase leaves the grasp of the person holding it, it is already considered “broken.” Likewise, the Shabbos candles are considered to have been virtually consumed by the time Shabbos starts. The Jewish mother can therefore rest assured that she is in fact not committing any Shabbos transgressions by lighting Shabbos candles.

The Kotzker Rebbe poses the following difficulty: It would seem that Rebbe Yochanan is not being consistent with his own dictum. In Maseches Ta’anis (29a) the Gemara says that the Beis HaMikdash was set ablaze on the ninth day of Av. Most of the actual destruction from the fire, however, occurred on the tenth of Av. (This is why some restrictions relating to the Nine Days and the Three Weeks extend to the tenth of Av.) Rebbe Yochanan commented that if it were up to him, he would have set the “Tishah B’Av” fast day for the tenth of Av, since that is when most of the destruction occurred.

However, according to the Nemukei Yosef’s interpretation of R’ Yochanan’s statement in Bava Kama, all destruction is deemed to have already occurred at the time of ignition. What difference does it make when the actual destruction occurred? In halachah, the most important time is at the act of ignition. Therefore, the ninth day of Av—when the Beis HaMikdash was set ablaze—would seem to be most appropriate for a national fast day, not the tenth day as R’ Yochanan suggests in Ta’anis.

The Birchos Shimon offered the following answer: The pasuk in Eichah (4:11) states, “Hashem vented his fury . . . He kindled a fire in Zion which consumed its foundations.” The fire that burned the Beis HaMikdash was a supernatural fire that was started by Hashem. (Regardless of what the Babylonians thought.) Hashem has total control over the elements and the world. If a human starts a fire, he doesn’t necessarily have control over its outcome. But Hashem does. Even if a vase were dropped from a roof, Hashem obviously has the power to suspend it in mid-air. So an object that was set in motion to be destroyed by Hashem would not be considered destroyed until it actually was. Likewise, the Beis HaMikdash, which was consumed by a miraculous fire, cannot be considered destroyed until it actually is.

Somewhat at odds with the Birchos Shimon, the Arugas HaBosem actually applies the Nemukei Yosef’s reasoning to understanding the Churban. Why did Hashem choose fire as the mechanism of destruction for the Beis HaMikdash? Hashem was teaching us that in exile we should compare ourselves to the halachic status of fire. Just as from the time a fire is lit it is viewed as if it has already burned everything in its path, our resolutions to do good deeds already accomplish a lot before we even perform them. HaKadosh Baruch Hu considers a decision to do a good deed as if the deed were already done. Though as a nation we may never achieve the real spiritual plateau necessary for the redemption, Hashem will consider our sincere resolutions to do good to be enough. (Obviously, if a person doesn’t try his utmost to fulfill his resolutions, then his resolutions are insincere and would not qualify.)

Hashem knows that niskatnu ha’doros and that we cannot reach the lofty spiritual levels of the previous generations, but our desire to do so will be enough. That is also why the Beis HaMikdash will eventually be rebuilt in fire, as the Gemara (Bava Kama 60b) says, “Said the Holy One, Blessed Be He, ‘I burned a fire in Zion and I will build it in fire.’” In the Nachem prayer recited on Tishah B’Av we recite, similarly, “For You, Hashem, lit it on fire and you will one day build it in fire.” The lesson intended is that we can merit the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash with the halachic qualities of fire. Our sincere desire to rectify and improve ourselves will be enough to merit the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash with fire. May it be built speedily in our days. ™