Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 27, 2020 | 讘壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Shabbat 21

Today’s shiur is dedicated by Tova Taragin in memory of her father,Rabbi Jerome Fishman, HaRav Yirmia ben Yaakov Yosef, z”l who taught his granddaughter, Esther Korman, gemara at a young age and would be thrilled that his daughter is now learning gemara, and by Sandra Rubin in honor of her aunt Alba Rubin’s 81st birthday. Mazel tov!

What is the issue with the materials that can’t be used for making wicks and the oils that can’t be used for lighting Shabbat candles. The gemara continues to identify the meaning of the words in the mishna. Can one light with one of those oils if it were mixed with a small amount of oil that does light well? The oils that can’t be used on Shabbat also can’t be used in the Temple for lighting the menora. Can they be used for Chanuka? Does it matter if it is Shabbat or a weekday? Three different opinions are brought. What is the reasoning behind each opinion? The mitzva of lighting candles on Chanuka is from sunset until the last people leave the marketplace. What is the meaning of this statement and does it contradict one of the opinions mentioned just before? How many candles should one light? There are three options brought – regular mitzva, for those who want to beautify the mitzva (mehadrin) and for those who want to do even more (mehadrin min hamehadrin). Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding the last one. Two different explanations are brought for the reasoning behind this debate. Where does one put the Chanuka candles? What does one do if it is dangerous to put them outside? Why do we celebrate eight days of Chanuka? The mishna in Bava Kama says that if one’s camel is carrying flax and it lights on fire from Chanuka candles that a storekeeper put outside and it burns down something else, the owner of the camel is responsible as he should have expected there would be candles there. Can one learn from here laws regarding the height of where Chanuka candles should be placed?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专:

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that emerges from that which Rami bar Avin taught? The Gemara explains: Its significance is with regard to buying and selling. One who buys tar can insist upon receiving the by-product of pitch and no other material. The same is true with regard to wax and honey.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘砖讘转 讗讘诇 注讜砖讬谉 诪讛谉 诪讚讜专讛 讘讬谉 诇讛转讞诪诐 讻谞讙讚讛 讘讬谉 诇讛砖转诪砖 诇讗讜专讛 讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讬专讛 讜诇讗 讗住专讜 讗诇讗 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 驻转讬诇讛 诇谞专 讘诇讘讚:

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: With regard to all of those materials about which they said that one may not light the lamp with them on Shabbat; however, one may use them ab initio to make a bonfire. One may do so both to warm himself opposite it and to utilize its light, and he may ignite it both on the ground and on a stove. They prohibited using them only to make a wick for an oil lamp.

讜诇讗 讘砖诪谉 拽讬拽 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 砖诪谉 拽讬拽 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讗讬诇转讬谞讛讜 诇讻诇 谞讞讜转讬 讬诪讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 注讜祝 讗讞讚 讬砖 讘讻专讻讬 讛讬诐 讜拽讬拽 砖诪讜 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诪砖讞讗 讚拽讗讝讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽讬拽讬讜谉 讚讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 拽讬拽讬讜谉 讚讬讜谞讛 讜诇爪诇讜诇讬讘讗 讚诪讬 讜诪讚驻砖拽讬 专讘讬 讜注诇 驻讜诐 讞谞讜转讗 诪讚诇谉 讬转讬讛 讜诪驻专爪讬讚讜讛讬 注讘讚讬 诪砖讞讗 讜讘注谞驻讜讛讬 谞讬讬讞谉 讻诇 讘专讬讞讬 讚诪注专讘讗

And we learned in the mishna that one may not light the Shabbat lamp with kik oil. The Gemara asks: What is kik oil? Shmuel said: I asked all the seafarers, and they said to me that there is a bird in the cities on the sea coast, and kik is its name. Kik oil is produced from that bird. Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Yehuda, said: This is referring to cotton oil. Reish Lakish said: It is the oil made from the seed of a plant like the castor plant [kikayon] of Jonah. Rabba bar bar 岣na said: I have seen the species of the castor plant of Jonah, and it is similar to the ricinus tree and it grows in swamps, and they place it at the entrance of shops for shade, and they produce oil from its seeds, and all the sick people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, rest beneath its branches.

讗诪专 专讘讛 驻转讬诇讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘砖讘转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讗讜专 诪住讻住讻转 讘讛谉 砖诪谞讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讗讞专 讛驻转讬诇讛

Rabba said: Those wicks about which the Sages said one may not light with them on Shabbat, the reason is: Because the fire flickers on them. It sputters on the wick and does not burn well. Those oils with which the Sages said that one may not light on Shabbat, the reason is: Because they are not drawn effectively by the wick.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 砖诪谞讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘砖讘转 诪讛讜 砖讬转谉 诇转讜讻谉 砖诪谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讬讚诇讬拽 诪讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讚诇讜拽讬 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉

Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: Those oils with which the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, what is the ruling? May one, ab initio, add to them any amount of oil with which it is permissible to light and light with that mixture? The sides of the dilemma are: Do we issue a decree lest one come to light these oils in their natural form, without mixing them with permissible oils? Or no, that possibility is not a source of concern? Rabba said to him: One may not light that mixture. What is the reason for this? The reason is because the halakha is that one may not light (Arukh).

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻专讱 讚讘专 砖诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 (讗诪专) 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖诇 讘讬转 讗讘讗 讛讬讜 讻讜专讻讬谉 驻转讬诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讙讜讝 讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 opinion from that which was taught in the Tosefta: One who wrapped a material with which one may light around a material with which one may not light, may not light with the bound wick. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In the ancestral house of my father, they would wrap a wick with which one is permitted to light around a nut, and that was how they would light. In any case, it is teaching that, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, one may light. Apparently, one is permitted to light with a combination of permitted and prohibited wicks.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚诪讜转讘转 诇讬 诪讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讬讬注讬谞讛讜 诪讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪注砖讛 专讘 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讛讚诇讬拽 诇讗 诇讛拽驻讜转 讗讬 诇讛拽驻讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻专讱 讚讘专 砖诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讛讚诇讬拽 讗讘诇 诇讛拽驻讜转 诪讜转专 砖专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讘讬转 讗讘讗 讛讬讜 讻讜专讻讬谉 驻转讬诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讙讜讝

Rabba said to him: Before you raise an objection to my opinion from the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, support it from the statement of the first tanna, who said that it is prohibited to light in that case. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is preferable to challenge from the statement of Rabban Gamliel with regard to the custom in his father鈥檚 house. There is a principle that proof cited from an action is great, i.e., a practical precedent is more substantial than a theoretical halakha. Nevertheless, the difficulty from the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel remains: Is he not speaking of a case where he combined the wick and the nut to light them together? If so, one is permitted to combine the prohibited and the permitted. The Gemara answers: No, it is speaking in a case where he combined them to float the wick on the oil with the help of the nut. The Gemara asks: If it is speaking only with regard to a case of floating the wick, what is the reason that the first tanna prohibits doing so? The Gemara answers: The entire baraita is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and it is incomplete, and it teaches the following: One who wrapped a material with which one may light around a material with which one may not light, may not light with it. In what case is this statement said? When he combines the materials to light them together. However, if he utilizes that with which one may not light merely in order to float the wick, it is permitted, as we learned that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the ancestral house of my father, they would wrap a wick with which one is permitted to light around a nut. That was how they would light.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讘专讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诇讘 诪讛讜转讱 讜拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 砖谞诪讜讞讜 讗讚诐 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讻讜 砖诪谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜诪讚诇讬拽 讛谞讬 诪讬诪砖讻讬 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 诪讬诪砖讻讬 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讞诇讘 诪讛讜转讱 诪砖讜诐 讞诇讘 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讛讜转讱 讜注诇 拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 砖谞诪讜讞讜 诪砖讜诐 拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 砖诇讗 谞诪讜讞讜 讜诇讬讙讝讜专 谞诪讬 讞诇讘 诪讛讜转讱 讜拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 砖谞诪讜讞讜 砖谞转谉 诇转讜讻谉 砖诪谉 诪砖讜诐 讞诇讘 诪讛讜转讱 讜拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 砖谞诪讜讞讜 砖诇讗 谞转谉 诇转讜讻谉 砖诪谉 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讬讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛:

In any case, to this point the conclusion is that one may not light with a mixture of permitted and prohibited oils. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Beruna say that Rav said: With regard to molten fat or fish innards that dissolved and became like oil, a person may place any amount of oil fit for lighting into it and light. Apparently, one may light with a mixture of permitted and prohibited oils. Rabba answers: These, the fat and the fish innards, are drawn by the wick even in their natural state, and those, the prohibited oils, are not drawn in their natural state. Originally, the Sages issued a decree to prohibit molten fat due to unmolten fat and to prohibit dissolved fish innards due to undissolved fish innards; however, the Sages did not issue a decree in a case where one added to them any amount of oil suitable for lighting, and permitted lighting with it. The Gemara asks: Let them also issue a decree to prohibit molten fat and dissolved fish innards to which he added oil due to molten fat and dissolved fish innards to which he did not add permitted oil. The Gemara rejects this: That prohibition with regard to molten fat and dissolved fish innards itself is based on a decree. And will we arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? The Sages do not issue decrees under those circumstances. Therefore, there is no reason to prohibit their use.

转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 驻转讬诇讜转 讜砖诪谞讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘砖讘转 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘诪拽讚砖 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛注诇讜转 谞专 转诪讬讚 讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 砖诇讛讘转 注讜诇讛 诪讗讬诇讬讛 讜诇讗 砖转讛讗 注讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专

Rami bar 岣ma taught a baraita: Those wicks and oils, which the Sages said one may not light with them on Shabbat, one may not light with them in the Temple either because it is stated with regard to the Temple candelabrum: 鈥淎nd you shall command the children of Israel, that they bring unto you pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually鈥 (Exodus 27:20). Rami bar 岣ma taught that baraita and he also said its explanation: What is the proof from the verse? One may interpret the verse homiletically: The requirement is to light the candelabrum so that the flame ascends of itself when it is kindled, and not that it ascends by means of something else, i.e., adjusting the wick after it was lit.

转谞谉 诪讘诇讗讬 诪讻谞住讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讛诪讬谞讬讛诐 讛讬讜 诪驻拽讬注讬谉 讜诪讛谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 砖诪讞转 讘讬转 讛砖讜讗讘讛 砖讗谞讬

We learned in a mishna: They would unravel the threads of the tattered trousers of the priests and their belts in order to make wicks from them, and from those same wicks they would light at the Celebration of Drawing Water. There was wool in the belts of the priests. It is said that their belts were made from, among other things, tekhelet, which in the Bible refers to dyed wool. Apparently, one may light with a mixture that includes a wick unsuitable for lighting. The Gemara answers: The Celebration of Drawing Water is different, as in that celebration, they did not light the Temple candelabrum. They lit special lanterns made specifically for that purpose and were not stringent with regard to the wicks placed in them.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 诪转谞讛 讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 砖讘诇讜 诪驻拽讬注讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜诪讛谉 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 驻转讬诇讜转 诇诪拽讚砖 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讻诇讗讬诐 诇讗 讚讘讜抓:

Come and hear a related question from that which Rabba bar Mattana taught: Priestly garments that were tattered, they would unravel them into threads from which they would make wicks for the Temple. Is this not also referring to garments made of diverse kinds, like the sashes of the priests that were made of a mixture of wool and linen? The Gemara answers: No, these wicks were made from linen garments alone.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻转讬诇讜转 讜砖诪谞讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘砖讘转 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘讞谞讜讻讛 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽住讘专 讻讘转讛 讝拽讜拽 诇讛 讜诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 诇讗讜专讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘讞讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘转 拽住讘专 讻讘转讛

Rav Huna said: Those wicks and oils with which the Sages said that one may not light the lamp on Shabbat, one may not light the lamp with them on Hanukkah either; both when it falls on Shabbat and when it falls during the week. Rava said: What is the reason for Rav Huna鈥檚 statement? He holds that if the Hanukkah light becomes extinguished, even though one lit it properly, one is bound to attend to it and relight it so that it will burn properly. Therefore, one must ensure that the wick burns properly from the outset. And utilizing the light of the Hanukkah lamp is permitted during the week. Consequently, in order to prevent him from inadvertently sinning on Shabbat, he must ensure from the outset that the wick burns well, lest he come to adjust the flame on Shabbat. Those wicks and oils do not burn well at all. And Rav 岣sda said: Those same oils and wicks with which the Sages prohibited to light on Shabbat, one may light with them on Hanukkah during the week, but not on Shabbat. He holds that if the Hanukkah light is extinguished

讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讛 讜诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 诇讗讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻转讬诇讜转 讜砖诪谞讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘砖讘转 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘讞谞讜讻讛 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 拽住讘专 讻讘转讛 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讛 讜讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 诇讗讜专讛

one is not bound to attend to it. Therefore, there is no reason to make certain from the outset to light it with materials that burn well, as even if it is extinguished, he is not required to relight it. However, he also holds that it is permitted to use its light. As a result, he must ensure that the wick burns well on Shabbat; if not, he is liable to come to adjust the flame in order to use its light. The third opinion is that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Mattana said, and others say that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: The wicks and oils with which the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, one may, nevertheless, light with them on Hanukkah, both during the week and on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said: What is Rav鈥檚 reason? He holds that if it is extinguished, one is not bound to attend to it and relight it, and it is prohibited to use its light. Therefore, even on Shabbat, there is no concern lest he come to adjust the wick, as it is prohibited to utilize its light.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽讬讘诇讛 讗诪专 讗讬 讝讻讗讬 讙诪讬专转讬讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讛讗 讙诪专讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讙讬专住讗 讚讬谞拽讜转讗

The Gemara relates that the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya and he did not accept it, as he did not hold Rabbi Yirmeya in high regard. However, subsequently, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan, and he accepted it. Then Abaye said regretfully: Had I merited, I would have learned this halakha from the outset. The Gemara wonders: Didn鈥檛 he ultimately learn it and accept it? What difference does it make from whom and at what point he learned it? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to knowledge acquired in one鈥檚 youth, which is better remembered.

讜讻讘转讛 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪爪讜转讛 诪砖转砖拽注 讛讞诪讛 注讚 砖转讻诇讛 专讙诇 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讬 讻讘转讛 讛讚专 诪讚诇讬拽 诇讛 诇讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 讗讚诇讬拽 诪讚诇讬拽 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 诇砖讬注讜专讛:

With regard to the opinion that one need not rekindle the Hanukkah light if it is extinguished, the Gemara asks: And is it true that if the Hanukkah light is extinguished one is not bound to attend to it? The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita: The mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah lights is from sunset until traffic in the marketplace ceases. Does that not mean that if the light is extinguished, he must rekindle it so that it will remain lit for the duration of that period? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita can be understood otherwise: That if one did not yet light at sunset, he may still light the Hanukkah lights until traffic ceases. Alternatively, one could say that this is referring to the matter of its measure. One must prepare a wick and oil sufficient to burn for the period lasting from sunset until traffic ceases. If he did so, even if the light is extinguished beforehand, he need not relight it.

注讚 砖转讻诇讛 专讙诇 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讚 讚讻诇讬讗 专讬讙诇讗 讚转专诪讜讚讗讬:

The expression until traffic in the marketplace ceases is mentioned here, and the Gemara asks: Until when exactly is this time? Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Until the traffic of the people of Tadmor [tarmodaei] ceases. They sold kindling wood and remained in the marketplace later than everyone else. People who discovered at sunset that they had exhausted their wood supply could purchase wood from them.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪爪讜转 讞谞讜讻讛 谞专 讗讬砖 讜讘讬转讜 讜讛诪讛讚专讬谉 谞专 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜讛诪讛讚专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讛讚专讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪讚诇讬拽 砖诪谞讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 驻讜讞转 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪讚诇讬拽 讗讞转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪讜住讬祝 讜讛讜诇讱

The Sages taught in a baraita: The basic mitzva of Hanukkah is each day to have a light kindled by a person, the head of the household, for himself and his household. And the mehadrin, i.e., those who are meticulous in the performance of mitzvot, kindle a light for each and every one in the household. And the mehadrin min hamehadrin, who are even more meticulous, adjust the number of lights daily. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to the nature of that adjustment. Beit Shammai say: On the first day one kindles eight lights and, from there on, gradually decreases the number of lights until, on the last day of Hanukkah, he kindles one light. And Beit Hillel say: On the first day one kindles one light, and from there on, gradually increases the number of lights until, on the last day, he kindles eight lights.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讘诪注专讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻谞讙讚 讬诪讬诐 讛谞讻谞住讬谉 讜讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻谞讙讚 讬诪讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻谞讙讚 驻专讬 讛讞讙 讜讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚诪注诇讬谉 讘拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

Ulla said: There were two amoraim in the West, Eretz Yisrael, who disagreed with regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida. One said that the reason for Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the incoming days, i.e., the future. On the first day, eight days remain in Hanukkah, one kindles eight lights, and on the second day seven days remain, one kindles seven, etc. The reason for Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the outgoing days. Each day, the number of lights corresponds to the number of the days of Hanukkah that were already observed. And one said that the reason for Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the festival of Sukkot: Thirteen were sacrificed on the first day and each succeeding day one fewer was sacrificed (Numbers 29:12鈥31). The reason for Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion is that the number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Therefore, if the objective is to have the number of lights correspond to the number of days, there is no alternative to increasing their number with the passing of each day.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬 讝拽谞讬诐 讛讬讜 讘爪讬讚谉 讗讞讚 注砖讛 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讛 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇讚讘专讬讜 讻谞讙讚 驻专讬 讛讞讙 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚诪注诇讬谉 讘拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: There were two Elders in Sidon, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Each provided a reason for his actions: One gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the Festival. And one gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讛谞讬讞讛 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讗诐 讛讬讛 讚专 讘注诇讬讬讛 诪谞讬讞讛 讘讞诇讜谉 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 诪谞讬讞讛 注诇 砖诇讞谞讜 讜讚讬讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp at the entrance to one鈥檚 house on the outside, so that all can see it. If he lived upstairs, he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger, when the gentiles issued decrees to prohibit kindling lights, he places it on the table and that is sufficient to fulfill his obligation.

讗诪专 专讘讗 爪专讬讱 谞专 讗讞专转 诇讛砖转诪砖 诇讗讜专讛 讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讚讜专讛 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讜讗讬 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讚讜专讛 爪专讬讱 谞专 讗讞专转:

Rava said: One must kindle another light in addition to the Hanukkah lights in order to use its light, as it is prohibited to use the light of the Hanukkah lights. And if there is a bonfire, he need not light an additional light, as he can use the light of the bonfire. However, if he is an important person, who is unaccustomed to using the light of a bonfire, even though there is a bonfire, he must kindle another light.

诪讗讬 讞谞讜讻讛 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讻讛 讘讻住诇讬讜 讬讜诪讬 讚讞谞讜讻讛 转诪谞讬讗 讗讬谞讜谉 讚诇讗 诇诪住驻讚 讘讛讜谉 讜讚诇讗 诇讛转注谞讜转 讘讛讜谉 砖讻砖谞讻谞住讜 讬讜讜谞讬诐 诇讛讬讻诇 讟诪讗讜 讻诇 讛砖诪谞讬诐 砖讘讛讬讻诇 讜讻砖讙讘专讛 诪诇讻讜转 讘讬转 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讜谞爪讞讜诐 讘讚拽讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 讗诇讗 驻讱 讗讞讚 砖诇 砖诪谉 砖讛讬讛 诪讜谞讞 讘讞讜转诪讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讚诇讬拽 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞注砖讛 讘讜 谞住 讜讛讚诇讬拽讜 诪诪谞讜 砖诪讜谞讛 讬诪讬诐 诇砖谞讛 讗讞专转 拽讘注讜诐 讜注砖讗讜诐 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 讘讛诇诇 讜讛讜讚讗讛

The Gemara asks: What is Hanukkah, and why are lights kindled on Hanukkah? The Gemara answers: The Sages taught in Megillat Taanit: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah are eight. One may not eulogize on them and one may not fast on them. What is the reason? When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary by touching them. And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame them and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, undisturbed by the Greeks. And there was sufficient oil there to light the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit the candelabrum from it eight days. The next year the Sages instituted those days and made them holidays with recitation of hallel and special thanksgiving in prayer and blessings.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讙抓 讛讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讛驻讟讬砖 讜讬爪讗 讜讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘 讙诪诇 砖讟注讜谉 驻砖转谉 讜讛讜讗 注讜讘专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞讻谞住讛 驻砖转谞讜 诇转讜讱 讛讞谞讜转 讜讚诇拽讛 讘谞专讜 砖诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讜讛讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讘讬专讛 讘注诇 讛讙诪诇 讞讬讬讘 讛谞讬讞 讞谞讜谞讬 讗转 谞专讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讞谞讜谞讬 讞讬讬讘

We learned there in a mishna with regard to damages: In the case of a spark that emerges from under a hammer, and went out of the artisan鈥檚 workshop, and caused damage, the one who struck the hammer is liable. Similarly, in the case of a camel that is laden with flax and it passed through the public domain, and its flax entered into a store, and caught fire from the storekeeper鈥檚 lamp, and set fire to the building, the camel owner is liable. Since his flax entered into another鈥檚 domain, which he had no permission to enter, all the damages were caused due to his negligence. However, if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside the store and it set fire to the flax, the storekeeper is liable, as he placed the lamp outside his domain where he had no right to place it.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 (诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讛) 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讛谞讬讞讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讛谞讬讞 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙诪诇 讜专讜讻讘讜 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬 诪讬讟专讞讗 诇讬讛 讟讜讘讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬诪谞讜注讬 诪诪爪讜讛:

Rabbi Yehuda says: If the flax was set on fire by the storekeeper鈥檚 Hanukkah lamp that he placed outside the entrance to his store, he is not liable, as in that case, it is permitted for the storekeeper to place his lamp outside. Ravina said in the name of Rabba: That is to say that it is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within ten handbreadths of the ground. As if it should enter your mind to say that he may place it above ten handbreadths, why is the storekeeper exempt? Let the camel owner say to the storekeeper: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider, and then no damage would have been caused. By failing to do so, the storekeeper caused the damage, and the camel owner should not be liable. The Gemara rejects this: And perhaps one is also permitted to place the Hanukkah lamp above ten handbreadths, and the reason Rabbi Yehuda exempted the storekeeper was due to concern for the observance of the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. He held that if you burden one excessively, he will come to refrain from performing the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. Since the storekeeper placed the Hanukkah lamp outside at the behest of the Sages, the storekeeper should not be required to take extra precautions.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚专砖 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐

With regard to the essence of the matter Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tan岣m:

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Chanuka Sugiyot

Chanuka Sugiyot – Shabbat Chapter 2

In discussing what oils one may use for lighting Shabbat candles, Masechet Shabbat, dapim聽21-24 discuss all aspects of the holiday...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 21: There’s No Masekhet Chanukah

It's the Chanukah section of the Talmud. That's all that really need be said (though we also talk about why...

Shabbat 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 21

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专:

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference that emerges from that which Rami bar Avin taught? The Gemara explains: Its significance is with regard to buying and selling. One who buys tar can insist upon receiving the by-product of pitch and no other material. The same is true with regard to wax and honey.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘砖讘转 讗讘诇 注讜砖讬谉 诪讛谉 诪讚讜专讛 讘讬谉 诇讛转讞诪诐 讻谞讙讚讛 讘讬谉 诇讛砖转诪砖 诇讗讜专讛 讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讬专讛 讜诇讗 讗住专讜 讗诇讗 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 驻转讬诇讛 诇谞专 讘诇讘讚:

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: With regard to all of those materials about which they said that one may not light the lamp with them on Shabbat; however, one may use them ab initio to make a bonfire. One may do so both to warm himself opposite it and to utilize its light, and he may ignite it both on the ground and on a stove. They prohibited using them only to make a wick for an oil lamp.

讜诇讗 讘砖诪谉 拽讬拽 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 砖诪谉 拽讬拽 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讗讬诇转讬谞讛讜 诇讻诇 谞讞讜转讬 讬诪讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 注讜祝 讗讞讚 讬砖 讘讻专讻讬 讛讬诐 讜拽讬拽 砖诪讜 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诪砖讞讗 讚拽讗讝讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽讬拽讬讜谉 讚讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬 拽讬拽讬讜谉 讚讬讜谞讛 讜诇爪诇讜诇讬讘讗 讚诪讬 讜诪讚驻砖拽讬 专讘讬 讜注诇 驻讜诐 讞谞讜转讗 诪讚诇谉 讬转讬讛 讜诪驻专爪讬讚讜讛讬 注讘讚讬 诪砖讞讗 讜讘注谞驻讜讛讬 谞讬讬讞谉 讻诇 讘专讬讞讬 讚诪注专讘讗

And we learned in the mishna that one may not light the Shabbat lamp with kik oil. The Gemara asks: What is kik oil? Shmuel said: I asked all the seafarers, and they said to me that there is a bird in the cities on the sea coast, and kik is its name. Kik oil is produced from that bird. Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rav Yehuda, said: This is referring to cotton oil. Reish Lakish said: It is the oil made from the seed of a plant like the castor plant [kikayon] of Jonah. Rabba bar bar 岣na said: I have seen the species of the castor plant of Jonah, and it is similar to the ricinus tree and it grows in swamps, and they place it at the entrance of shops for shade, and they produce oil from its seeds, and all the sick people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, rest beneath its branches.

讗诪专 专讘讛 驻转讬诇讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘砖讘转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讗讜专 诪住讻住讻转 讘讛谉 砖诪谞讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 谞诪砖讻讬谉 讗讞专 讛驻转讬诇讛

Rabba said: Those wicks about which the Sages said one may not light with them on Shabbat, the reason is: Because the fire flickers on them. It sputters on the wick and does not burn well. Those oils with which the Sages said that one may not light on Shabbat, the reason is: Because they are not drawn effectively by the wick.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪专讘讛 砖诪谞讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘砖讘转 诪讛讜 砖讬转谉 诇转讜讻谉 砖诪谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讬讚诇讬拽 诪讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讚诇讜拽讬 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉

Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: Those oils with which the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, what is the ruling? May one, ab initio, add to them any amount of oil with which it is permissible to light and light with that mixture? The sides of the dilemma are: Do we issue a decree lest one come to light these oils in their natural form, without mixing them with permissible oils? Or no, that possibility is not a source of concern? Rabba said to him: One may not light that mixture. What is the reason for this? The reason is because the halakha is that one may not light (Arukh).

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻专讱 讚讘专 砖诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 (讗诪专) 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 砖诇 讘讬转 讗讘讗 讛讬讜 讻讜专讻讬谉 驻转讬诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讙讜讝 讜诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 opinion from that which was taught in the Tosefta: One who wrapped a material with which one may light around a material with which one may not light, may not light with the bound wick. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In the ancestral house of my father, they would wrap a wick with which one is permitted to light around a nut, and that was how they would light. In any case, it is teaching that, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, one may light. Apparently, one is permitted to light with a combination of permitted and prohibited wicks.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚诪讜转讘转 诇讬 诪讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讬讬注讬谞讛讜 诪讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诪注砖讛 专讘 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讛讚诇讬拽 诇讗 诇讛拽驻讜转 讗讬 诇讛拽驻讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻专讱 讚讘专 砖诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讛讚诇讬拽 讗讘诇 诇讛拽驻讜转 诪讜转专 砖专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讘讬转 讗讘讗 讛讬讜 讻讜专讻讬谉 驻转讬诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讙讜讝

Rabba said to him: Before you raise an objection to my opinion from the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, support it from the statement of the first tanna, who said that it is prohibited to light in that case. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is preferable to challenge from the statement of Rabban Gamliel with regard to the custom in his father鈥檚 house. There is a principle that proof cited from an action is great, i.e., a practical precedent is more substantial than a theoretical halakha. Nevertheless, the difficulty from the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel remains: Is he not speaking of a case where he combined the wick and the nut to light them together? If so, one is permitted to combine the prohibited and the permitted. The Gemara answers: No, it is speaking in a case where he combined them to float the wick on the oil with the help of the nut. The Gemara asks: If it is speaking only with regard to a case of floating the wick, what is the reason that the first tanna prohibits doing so? The Gemara answers: The entire baraita is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and it is incomplete, and it teaches the following: One who wrapped a material with which one may light around a material with which one may not light, may not light with it. In what case is this statement said? When he combines the materials to light them together. However, if he utilizes that with which one may not light merely in order to float the wick, it is permitted, as we learned that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the ancestral house of my father, they would wrap a wick with which one is permitted to light around a nut. That was how they would light.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讘专讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞诇讘 诪讛讜转讱 讜拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 砖谞诪讜讞讜 讗讚诐 谞讜转谉 诇转讜讻讜 砖诪谉 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜诪讚诇讬拽 讛谞讬 诪讬诪砖讻讬 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 诪讬诪砖讻讬 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讙讝专讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讞诇讘 诪讛讜转讱 诪砖讜诐 讞诇讘 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讛讜转讱 讜注诇 拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 砖谞诪讜讞讜 诪砖讜诐 拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 砖诇讗 谞诪讜讞讜 讜诇讬讙讝讜专 谞诪讬 讞诇讘 诪讛讜转讱 讜拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 砖谞诪讜讞讜 砖谞转谉 诇转讜讻谉 砖诪谉 诪砖讜诐 讞诇讘 诪讛讜转讱 讜拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 砖谞诪讜讞讜 砖诇讗 谞转谉 诇转讜讻谉 砖诪谉 讛讬讗 讙讜驻讛 讙讝讬专讛 讜讗谞谉 谞讬拽讜诐 讜谞讬讙讝讜专 讙讝讬专讛 诇讙讝讬专讛:

In any case, to this point the conclusion is that one may not light with a mixture of permitted and prohibited oils. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 Rav Beruna say that Rav said: With regard to molten fat or fish innards that dissolved and became like oil, a person may place any amount of oil fit for lighting into it and light. Apparently, one may light with a mixture of permitted and prohibited oils. Rabba answers: These, the fat and the fish innards, are drawn by the wick even in their natural state, and those, the prohibited oils, are not drawn in their natural state. Originally, the Sages issued a decree to prohibit molten fat due to unmolten fat and to prohibit dissolved fish innards due to undissolved fish innards; however, the Sages did not issue a decree in a case where one added to them any amount of oil suitable for lighting, and permitted lighting with it. The Gemara asks: Let them also issue a decree to prohibit molten fat and dissolved fish innards to which he added oil due to molten fat and dissolved fish innards to which he did not add permitted oil. The Gemara rejects this: That prohibition with regard to molten fat and dissolved fish innards itself is based on a decree. And will we arise and issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree? The Sages do not issue decrees under those circumstances. Therefore, there is no reason to prohibit their use.

转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 驻转讬诇讜转 讜砖诪谞讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘砖讘转 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘诪拽讚砖 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛注诇讜转 谞专 转诪讬讚 讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 砖诇讛讘转 注讜诇讛 诪讗讬诇讬讛 讜诇讗 砖转讛讗 注讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专

Rami bar 岣ma taught a baraita: Those wicks and oils, which the Sages said one may not light with them on Shabbat, one may not light with them in the Temple either because it is stated with regard to the Temple candelabrum: 鈥淎nd you shall command the children of Israel, that they bring unto you pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually鈥 (Exodus 27:20). Rami bar 岣ma taught that baraita and he also said its explanation: What is the proof from the verse? One may interpret the verse homiletically: The requirement is to light the candelabrum so that the flame ascends of itself when it is kindled, and not that it ascends by means of something else, i.e., adjusting the wick after it was lit.

转谞谉 诪讘诇讗讬 诪讻谞住讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪讛诪讬谞讬讛诐 讛讬讜 诪驻拽讬注讬谉 讜诪讛谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 砖诪讞转 讘讬转 讛砖讜讗讘讛 砖讗谞讬

We learned in a mishna: They would unravel the threads of the tattered trousers of the priests and their belts in order to make wicks from them, and from those same wicks they would light at the Celebration of Drawing Water. There was wool in the belts of the priests. It is said that their belts were made from, among other things, tekhelet, which in the Bible refers to dyed wool. Apparently, one may light with a mixture that includes a wick unsuitable for lighting. The Gemara answers: The Celebration of Drawing Water is different, as in that celebration, they did not light the Temple candelabrum. They lit special lanterns made specifically for that purpose and were not stringent with regard to the wicks placed in them.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 诪转谞讛 讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 砖讘诇讜 诪驻拽讬注讬谉 讗讜转谉 讜诪讛谉 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 驻转讬诇讜转 诇诪拽讚砖 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讻诇讗讬诐 诇讗 讚讘讜抓:

Come and hear a related question from that which Rabba bar Mattana taught: Priestly garments that were tattered, they would unravel them into threads from which they would make wicks for the Temple. Is this not also referring to garments made of diverse kinds, like the sashes of the priests that were made of a mixture of wool and linen? The Gemara answers: No, these wicks were made from linen garments alone.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 驻转讬诇讜转 讜砖诪谞讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘砖讘转 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘讞谞讜讻讛 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽住讘专 讻讘转讛 讝拽讜拽 诇讛 讜诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 诇讗讜专讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘讞讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘转 拽住讘专 讻讘转讛

Rav Huna said: Those wicks and oils with which the Sages said that one may not light the lamp on Shabbat, one may not light the lamp with them on Hanukkah either; both when it falls on Shabbat and when it falls during the week. Rava said: What is the reason for Rav Huna鈥檚 statement? He holds that if the Hanukkah light becomes extinguished, even though one lit it properly, one is bound to attend to it and relight it so that it will burn properly. Therefore, one must ensure that the wick burns properly from the outset. And utilizing the light of the Hanukkah lamp is permitted during the week. Consequently, in order to prevent him from inadvertently sinning on Shabbat, he must ensure from the outset that the wick burns well, lest he come to adjust the flame on Shabbat. Those wicks and oils do not burn well at all. And Rav 岣sda said: Those same oils and wicks with which the Sages prohibited to light on Shabbat, one may light with them on Hanukkah during the week, but not on Shabbat. He holds that if the Hanukkah light is extinguished

讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讛 讜诪讜转专 诇讛砖转诪砖 诇讗讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻转讬诇讜转 讜砖诪谞讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘砖讘转 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘讛谉 讘讞谞讜讻讛 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 拽住讘专 讻讘转讛 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讛 讜讗住讜专 诇讛砖转诪砖 诇讗讜专讛

one is not bound to attend to it. Therefore, there is no reason to make certain from the outset to light it with materials that burn well, as even if it is extinguished, he is not required to relight it. However, he also holds that it is permitted to use its light. As a result, he must ensure that the wick burns well on Shabbat; if not, he is liable to come to adjust the flame in order to use its light. The third opinion is that which Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Mattana said, and others say that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: The wicks and oils with which the Sages said one may not light on Shabbat, one may, nevertheless, light with them on Hanukkah, both during the week and on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said: What is Rav鈥檚 reason? He holds that if it is extinguished, one is not bound to attend to it and relight it, and it is prohibited to use its light. Therefore, even on Shabbat, there is no concern lest he come to adjust the wick, as it is prohibited to utilize its light.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽讬讘诇讛 讗诪专 讗讬 讝讻讗讬 讙诪讬专转讬讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讛讗 讙诪专讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讙讬专住讗 讚讬谞拽讜转讗

The Gemara relates that the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya and he did not accept it, as he did not hold Rabbi Yirmeya in high regard. However, subsequently, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, the Sages said this halakha before Abaye in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan, and he accepted it. Then Abaye said regretfully: Had I merited, I would have learned this halakha from the outset. The Gemara wonders: Didn鈥檛 he ultimately learn it and accept it? What difference does it make from whom and at what point he learned it? The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to knowledge acquired in one鈥檚 youth, which is better remembered.

讜讻讘转讛 讗讬谉 讝拽讜拽 诇讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪爪讜转讛 诪砖转砖拽注 讛讞诪讛 注讚 砖转讻诇讛 专讙诇 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讬 讻讘转讛 讛讚专 诪讚诇讬拽 诇讛 诇讗 讚讗讬 诇讗 讗讚诇讬拽 诪讚诇讬拽 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 诇砖讬注讜专讛:

With regard to the opinion that one need not rekindle the Hanukkah light if it is extinguished, the Gemara asks: And is it true that if the Hanukkah light is extinguished one is not bound to attend to it? The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita: The mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah lights is from sunset until traffic in the marketplace ceases. Does that not mean that if the light is extinguished, he must rekindle it so that it will remain lit for the duration of that period? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita can be understood otherwise: That if one did not yet light at sunset, he may still light the Hanukkah lights until traffic ceases. Alternatively, one could say that this is referring to the matter of its measure. One must prepare a wick and oil sufficient to burn for the period lasting from sunset until traffic ceases. If he did so, even if the light is extinguished beforehand, he need not relight it.

注讚 砖转讻诇讛 专讙诇 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讚 讚讻诇讬讗 专讬讙诇讗 讚转专诪讜讚讗讬:

The expression until traffic in the marketplace ceases is mentioned here, and the Gemara asks: Until when exactly is this time? Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Until the traffic of the people of Tadmor [tarmodaei] ceases. They sold kindling wood and remained in the marketplace later than everyone else. People who discovered at sunset that they had exhausted their wood supply could purchase wood from them.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪爪讜转 讞谞讜讻讛 谞专 讗讬砖 讜讘讬转讜 讜讛诪讛讚专讬谉 谞专 诇讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜讛诪讛讚专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讛讚专讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪讚诇讬拽 砖诪谞讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 驻讜讞转 讜讛讜诇讱 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪讚诇讬拽 讗讞转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪讜住讬祝 讜讛讜诇讱

The Sages taught in a baraita: The basic mitzva of Hanukkah is each day to have a light kindled by a person, the head of the household, for himself and his household. And the mehadrin, i.e., those who are meticulous in the performance of mitzvot, kindle a light for each and every one in the household. And the mehadrin min hamehadrin, who are even more meticulous, adjust the number of lights daily. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to the nature of that adjustment. Beit Shammai say: On the first day one kindles eight lights and, from there on, gradually decreases the number of lights until, on the last day of Hanukkah, he kindles one light. And Beit Hillel say: On the first day one kindles one light, and from there on, gradually increases the number of lights until, on the last day, he kindles eight lights.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讘诪注专讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻谞讙讚 讬诪讬诐 讛谞讻谞住讬谉 讜讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻谞讙讚 讬诪讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻谞讙讚 驻专讬 讛讞讙 讜讟注诪讗 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚诪注诇讬谉 讘拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

Ulla said: There were two amoraim in the West, Eretz Yisrael, who disagreed with regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida. One said that the reason for Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the incoming days, i.e., the future. On the first day, eight days remain in Hanukkah, one kindles eight lights, and on the second day seven days remain, one kindles seven, etc. The reason for Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the outgoing days. Each day, the number of lights corresponds to the number of the days of Hanukkah that were already observed. And one said that the reason for Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion is that the number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the festival of Sukkot: Thirteen were sacrificed on the first day and each succeeding day one fewer was sacrificed (Numbers 29:12鈥31). The reason for Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion is that the number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Therefore, if the objective is to have the number of lights correspond to the number of days, there is no alternative to increasing their number with the passing of each day.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬 讝拽谞讬诐 讛讬讜 讘爪讬讚谉 讗讞讚 注砖讛 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讛 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇讚讘专讬讜 讻谞讙讚 驻专讬 讛讞讙 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚诪注诇讬谉 讘拽讚砖 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: There were two Elders in Sidon, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, and one of them acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Each provided a reason for his actions: One gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights corresponds to the bulls of the Festival. And one gave a reason for his actions: The number of lights is based on the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讛谞讬讞讛 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讗诐 讛讬讛 讚专 讘注诇讬讬讛 诪谞讬讞讛 讘讞诇讜谉 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘砖注转 讛住讻谞讛 诪谞讬讞讛 注诇 砖诇讞谞讜 讜讚讬讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp at the entrance to one鈥檚 house on the outside, so that all can see it. If he lived upstairs, he places it at the window adjacent to the public domain. And in a time of danger, when the gentiles issued decrees to prohibit kindling lights, he places it on the table and that is sufficient to fulfill his obligation.

讗诪专 专讘讗 爪专讬讱 谞专 讗讞专转 诇讛砖转诪砖 诇讗讜专讛 讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讚讜专讛 诇讗 爪专讬讱 讜讗讬 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讚讜专讛 爪专讬讱 谞专 讗讞专转:

Rava said: One must kindle another light in addition to the Hanukkah lights in order to use its light, as it is prohibited to use the light of the Hanukkah lights. And if there is a bonfire, he need not light an additional light, as he can use the light of the bonfire. However, if he is an important person, who is unaccustomed to using the light of a bonfire, even though there is a bonfire, he must kindle another light.

诪讗讬 讞谞讜讻讛 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讻讛 讘讻住诇讬讜 讬讜诪讬 讚讞谞讜讻讛 转诪谞讬讗 讗讬谞讜谉 讚诇讗 诇诪住驻讚 讘讛讜谉 讜讚诇讗 诇讛转注谞讜转 讘讛讜谉 砖讻砖谞讻谞住讜 讬讜讜谞讬诐 诇讛讬讻诇 讟诪讗讜 讻诇 讛砖诪谞讬诐 砖讘讛讬讻诇 讜讻砖讙讘专讛 诪诇讻讜转 讘讬转 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讜谞爪讞讜诐 讘讚拽讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讗讜 讗诇讗 驻讱 讗讞讚 砖诇 砖诪谉 砖讛讬讛 诪讜谞讞 讘讞讜转诪讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讚诇讬拽 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 谞注砖讛 讘讜 谞住 讜讛讚诇讬拽讜 诪诪谞讜 砖诪讜谞讛 讬诪讬诐 诇砖谞讛 讗讞专转 拽讘注讜诐 讜注砖讗讜诐 讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 讘讛诇诇 讜讛讜讚讗讛

The Gemara asks: What is Hanukkah, and why are lights kindled on Hanukkah? The Gemara answers: The Sages taught in Megillat Taanit: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah are eight. One may not eulogize on them and one may not fast on them. What is the reason? When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary by touching them. And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame them and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, undisturbed by the Greeks. And there was sufficient oil there to light the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit the candelabrum from it eight days. The next year the Sages instituted those days and made them holidays with recitation of hallel and special thanksgiving in prayer and blessings.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讙抓 讛讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讛驻讟讬砖 讜讬爪讗 讜讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘 讙诪诇 砖讟注讜谉 驻砖转谉 讜讛讜讗 注讜讘专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞讻谞住讛 驻砖转谞讜 诇转讜讱 讛讞谞讜转 讜讚诇拽讛 讘谞专讜 砖诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讜讛讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讘讬专讛 讘注诇 讛讙诪诇 讞讬讬讘 讛谞讬讞 讞谞讜谞讬 讗转 谞专讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讞谞讜谞讬 讞讬讬讘

We learned there in a mishna with regard to damages: In the case of a spark that emerges from under a hammer, and went out of the artisan鈥檚 workshop, and caused damage, the one who struck the hammer is liable. Similarly, in the case of a camel that is laden with flax and it passed through the public domain, and its flax entered into a store, and caught fire from the storekeeper鈥檚 lamp, and set fire to the building, the camel owner is liable. Since his flax entered into another鈥檚 domain, which he had no permission to enter, all the damages were caused due to his negligence. However, if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside the store and it set fire to the flax, the storekeeper is liable, as he placed the lamp outside his domain where he had no right to place it.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 (诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讛) 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讛谞讬讞讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讛谞讬讞 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙诪诇 讜专讜讻讘讜 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬 诪讬讟专讞讗 诇讬讛 讟讜讘讗 讗转讬 诇讗讬诪谞讜注讬 诪诪爪讜讛:

Rabbi Yehuda says: If the flax was set on fire by the storekeeper鈥檚 Hanukkah lamp that he placed outside the entrance to his store, he is not liable, as in that case, it is permitted for the storekeeper to place his lamp outside. Ravina said in the name of Rabba: That is to say that it is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within ten handbreadths of the ground. As if it should enter your mind to say that he may place it above ten handbreadths, why is the storekeeper exempt? Let the camel owner say to the storekeeper: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider, and then no damage would have been caused. By failing to do so, the storekeeper caused the damage, and the camel owner should not be liable. The Gemara rejects this: And perhaps one is also permitted to place the Hanukkah lamp above ten handbreadths, and the reason Rabbi Yehuda exempted the storekeeper was due to concern for the observance of the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. He held that if you burden one excessively, he will come to refrain from performing the mitzva of kindling Hanukkah lights. Since the storekeeper placed the Hanukkah lamp outside at the behest of the Sages, the storekeeper should not be required to take extra precautions.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚专砖 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐

With regard to the essence of the matter Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tan岣m:

Scroll To Top