PM- first, my thanks for you for your erudite and respectful replies. I will try to answer in the same vein.
In connection with extinguishing the fire in a house, you have only quoted half the story. I truly bow to your Torah knowledge but the same simman in the shulchan aruch (514-1) that prohibits extinguishing a fire in the house continues with a Remo that EXPLICITLY says that -if you have no other house-you can extinguish the fire. The same remo says the same about a pot.Hence, if one is left totally bereft, the remo is meikel.
There are various other discussions in the “nosei keilim’ and I will truly admit that I have not had time to peruse through all of them. The remo does say that- only for hefsed mommon- monetary reasons- you cannot extinguish the fire. But then again, we are talking about TOTAL extinguishing.The Aruch hashulchan- kedarko- has a full discussion on this matter.
I checked your source on 518-1 and ,correctly, it only allows “mitoch’ in the ‘melochos’ that deal DIRECTLY with oichel nefesh and according to most poskim, mechabeh is not directly involved in oichel nefesh. There is a huge “biur halocho’ that deals with this but I have not had the time to look over.
So, I readily admit to your point of view about fully extinguishing a fire on yom tov (I said so in an earlier entry)but my whole point with oomis1105 was that by reducing the fire to the pilot light is NOT fully extinguishing the fire and therefore has “good legs’ to stand on.
The whole difference rests on whether reducing the flame to the pilot light is “kibui” and whether they are two different lights.
You maintain that they are different lights and hence by extinguishing the main burner you have extinguished a light. That would be consistent with the various halochos in reraltion to full “kibui”
I maintain that the previous generation considered the pilot light and the burner one light and this was not “kibui” but just reducing the light to its minimum. yes, I know that even reducing light to a lesser flame may come under the prohibition of ‘kibui” but I added hefsed mammon to explain the possible leniency.
PLUS- and I am adding another layer to the discussion- reducing the flame by starving it of its gas intake may come under the title of “gram kibui”. Clearly, you don’t directly reduce the flame but all one does is reduce the gas INTAKE. That is gram kibui and ,as you know, “gram kibui” is muttor. BTW, there are precedents to call this gram kibui and I will gladly comment on that at a later date.
May i conclude this entry by recognzing your erudition and respecting your opinions.For you, it is obviously in your daily discussions. for me, it has been some tiem since I have been able to delve at depth in these sugyos and I am indebted to “pashute yid’ ,the originator of this discussion, and yourself to have given me this opportunity to leanr and to debate these weighty matters.