will turn off what was lit and turn it on again.
Sources: The arbitrators differed on whether KL mitzvot require intention or not, and many of the latter took the view that a mitzvot does not require intention, and I extended it in another answer (regarding two readings and one translation) to bring the opinions on this.
And MAM in our case does not belong to this law, since he did not intend to light it at all, and it is explained in Gm. Bara, a model for MAD Mitzvot that there is no need to be called in Daoriyata, but if he heard the sound of a trumpet and had a serious opinion about the Alma, he did not go out at all, and it is also explained there in DLMAD the "L that the commandment of the OT intended MM if plug and ka from a barking Nabochi did not come out at all in Rashi and Toss, therefore in our case there was no action on his part here at all and after all it is a self-lit violin that does not come out by him in a mitzvah.
And a model should be added if we were to consider here what he lit as an act, MM KEL as the judges (the 2nd Behal, the Rabbi brought the company of the judges in this) if we meant not to go out, surely he did not go out, and here if he turns off immediately there is perhaps a place to say that his thought is evident From his actions that we do not mean by igniting this error to the commandment that he put an end to and taught about its beginning [cited by Zebhaim 2 EB, and Yaoi'' in Mashnab 31 SQU of the halachah there is doubt whether I said this sabra and when he is in Daurita I add to it another doubt whether there is There is another doubt for the sake of a doubt, and here he is spurned], and in this context we must look, and we must also discuss the issue of revealing his opinion in such a way when it was unintentional 124, and Akmal, AJG, which is not a matter of speech here), and it should be discussed in the way that the Danan Sahdi does not have the opinion to leave since he entered into doubt by this, but this last discussion is not valid as such because they believe that Mitzvot 1 "He did what was right, and if they believe that commandments should be done, he didn't do anything and surely he can turn it off, but only if he has doubts, he doesn't want to come out with what he did, it's something that needs to be discussed anyway.
However, the first sabra can actually be relied upon to extinguish the candle and to light it as above, which is a clear sabra, and even if there was no clear sabra, there would be room to add to it the opinions of the great rabbis that a mitzva should also be intended in Darbanan, as I brought in the answer that talks about this, and in any case it is not a mitzvah candle rule, and it should also be added to this that the EKL from Ikra Dedina does not need it, so that there is no loss from the principle of the law in extinguishing the candle on the part of his duty regarding the lighting (but on the part of his duty towards not to extinguish, and it is to be trusted if he wants to extinguish that he can extinguish, since the worst is the worst doubt) , and also have to attach more opinions that I wrote as above.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 4303 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/4303
