Therefore, the verse states: “You shall not kindle fire in all your dwellings on the day of Shabbat” (Exodus 35:3). This is derived in the following manner: Kindling was included in the general prohibition prohibiting all labors, and why was it singled out and prohibited explicitly? It was singled out in order to equate the other labors to it and to tell you: Just as kindling is a primary category of prohibited labor, and one is liable for performing it on its own, so too, with regard to every primary category of prohibited labor, one is liable for performing it on its own.
And second, learn from it that the prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat was specifically singled out in the Torah to divide the various primary categories of labor and to establish liability for performance of each of them. The dissenting opinion is that kindling is singled out to teach that there is no capital punishment for performing that primary category of labor.
And third, learn from it that we do not say: Since it is permitted to kindle a fire for the purpose of preparing food, it is also permitted to light a fire not for the purpose of preparing food, e.g., to burn leaven.
Raba said, They differ in the matter of sequence. As it has been taught: If there were before a person [on the Sabbath] two burning [or extinguished] candles and he intended to extinguish the one but extinguished the other, or to kindle the one but kindled the other, he is exempt if he intended first to kindle the one and then to extinguish the other, and he first extinguished and then kindled, if with one breath he is liable, if with two breaths he is exempt. But is this not obvious? — I might have thought that since his design was not realized, seeing that he wanted first to kindle and then to extinguish, but in his act [we might regard it as if] the extinguishing was done first and then the kindling, he should accordingly be exempt; therefore we are told [that this is not so]; for although [the kindling] did not precede [the extinguishing], neither did it follow.7 Our Rabbis taught: If one removed coals [from a burning pile] on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering; R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok: He is liable to two [offerings], because he extinguished the upper coals and kindled the lower ones
He is not obligated (in the case of moving around the oil near the candle) because of the transgression of extinguishing, because he didn't really extinguish; rather, it was "Gram extinguishing," and gram extinguishing is allowed on the holidays, even though it hurried up it's extinguishing....and this is why it is ok to cut off the bottom of a candle (not with a knife and not to specific size, because of the prohibition of slicing/sizing), because in the hour that you are doing so you are not affecting the light at all, even though it will lead to the flame going out faster
(ו) הַמַּתִּיךְ אֶחָד מִמִּינֵי מַתָּכוֹת כָּל שֶׁהוּא אוֹ הַמְחַמֵּם אֶת הַמַּתָּכוֹת עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה גַּחֶלֶת הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹלֶדֶת מְבַשֵּׁל. וְכֵן הַמְמַסֵּס אֶת הַדּוֹנַג אוֹ אֶת הַחֵלֶב אוֹ אֶת הַזֶּפֶת וְהַכֹּפֶר וְהַגָּפְרִית וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹלֶדֶת מְבַשֵּׁל וְחַיָּב. וְכֵן הַמְבַשֵּׁל כְּלֵי אֲדָמָה עַד שֶׁיֵּעָשׂוּ חֶרֶס חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם מְבַשֵּׁל. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר בֵּין שֶׁרִפָּה גּוּף קָשֶׁה בָּאֵשׁ אוֹ שֶׁהִקְשָׁה גּוּף רַךְ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם מְבַשֵּׁל:
A person who melts even the slightest amount of metal or who heats a piece of metal until [it glows like] a coal24 performs a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of cooking.25 Similarly, a person who melts wax, tallow, tar, brown tar, or pitch, and the like performs a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of cooking and is liable.
Similarly, a person who heats an earthenware utensil until it becomes hard clay is liable for cooking. The general principle is: Whether one softens a firm entity with fire or hardens a soft entity, one is liable for cooking.
(א) הַמַּבְעִיר כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא צָרִיךְ לָאֵפֶר. אֲבָל אִם הִבְעִיר דֶּרֶךְ הַשְׁחָתָה פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְקַלְקֵל. וְהַמַּבְעִיר גְּדִישׁוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ אוֹ הַשּׂוֹרֵף דִּירָתוֹ חַיָּב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁחִית. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכַּוָּנָתוֹ לְהִנָּקֵם מִשּׂוֹנְאוֹ וַהֲרֵי נִתְקָרְרָה דַּעְתּוֹ וְשָׁכְכָה חֲמָתוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה כְּקוֹרֵעַ עַל מֵתוֹ אוֹ בַּחֲמָתוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב וּבְחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵרוֹ בִּשְׁעַת מְרִיבָה שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ מְתַקְּנִים הֵן אֵצֶל יִצְרָן הָרַע. וְכֵן הַמַּדְלִיק אֶת הַנֵּר אוֹ אֶת הָעֵצִים בֵּין לְהִתְחַמֵּם בֵּין לְהָאִיר הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב. הַמְחַמֵּם אֶת הַבַּרְזֶל כְּדֵי לְצָרְפוֹ בְּמַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה תּוֹלֶדֶת מַבְעִיר וְחַיָּב:
A person who kindles even the smallest fire is liable, provided he needs the ash that it creates. However, should a person kindle a fire with a destructive intent, he is not liable, for he is causing ruin.
Nevertheless, a person who sets fire to a heap of produce or a dwelling belonging to a colleague is liable, because his intent is to take revenge on his enemies. [Through this act,] he calms his feelings and vents his rage. He is comparable to a person who rends his garments over a deceased person or in rage [on the Sabbath],or a person who injures a colleague in an argument.These individuals are all considered to be performing a constructive activity, because of their evil inclinations.
Similarly, a person who lights a candle or wood, whether to generate warmth or light, is liable.
A person who heats iron in order to strengthen it by submerging it in water is liable for [performing] a derivative [of the forbidden labor] of kindling. Nevertheless, a person who sets fire to a heap of produce or a dwelling belonging to a colleague is liable, because his intent is to take revenge on his enemies. [Through this act,] he calms his feelings and vents his rage. He is comparable to a person who rends his garments over a deceased person or in rage [on the Sabbath],or a person who injures a colleague in an argument. These individuals are all considered to be performing a constructive activity, because of their evil inclinations.


