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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 28, 2020 | 讙壮 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's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 22

This week’s shiurim are sponsored in memory of Zalman Leib ben Moshe and by Talia Kaplan in honor of her sister, Pamela Kaplan for doing daf yomi – she’s very proud of you and keep up the good work – and by Adam and Sharron Cohen for a refuah shleima for Daphna Chaya bat Sara.

What is the maximum height one can put Chanuka candles? Can one count money using the light of Chanuka candles? Is this different from what Rav said regarding Chanuka candles – that one cannot use the light from them? Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding can one light from one Chanuka candle to another. Two reasons are given for Rav’s opinion and in exactly which situations they disagree. Is it the lighting that is the mitzva or placing the candles down?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

谞专 砖诇 讞谞讜讻讛 砖讛谞讬讞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讻住讜讻讛 讜讻诪讘讜讬: 讜讗诪专 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 转谞讞讜诐 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讜专 专拽 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讬诐 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讘讜专 专拽 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讬诐 诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讘诇 谞讞砖讬诐 讜注拽专讘讬诐 讬砖 讘讜:

A Hanukkah lamp that one placed above twenty cubits is invalid, just as a sukka whose roofing is more than twenty cubits high, and just as an alleyway whose beam, its symbolic fourth partition in order to place an eiruv, is more than twenty cubits high, are invalid. The reason is the same in all three cases: People do not usually raise their heads and see objects at a height above twenty cubits. As there is a requirement to see all of these, they are deemed invalid when placed above that height. And the Gemara cites another statement that Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rav Tan岣m: What is the meaning of the verse that is written with regard to Joseph: 鈥淎nd they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it鈥 (Genesis 37:24)? By inference from that which is stated: And the pit was empty, don鈥檛 I know that there was no water in it? Rather, why does the verse say: There was no water in it? The verse comes to emphasize and teach that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讛谞讬讞讛 讘讟驻讞 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇驻转讞 讜讛讬讻讗 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬诪讬谉 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讚驻转讬 讗诪专 诪砖诪讗诇 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 诪砖诪讗诇 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 诪砖诪讗诇 讜诪讝讜讝讛 诪讬诪讬谉:

Rabba said: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within the handbreadth adjacent to the entrance. The Gemara asks: And where, on which side, does he place it? There is a difference of opinion: Rav A岣, son of Rava, said: On the right side of the entrance. Rav Shmuel from Difti said: On the left. And the halakha is to place it on the left so that the Hanukkah lamp will be on the left and the mezuza on the right. One who enters the house will be surrounded by mitzvot (ge鈥檕nim).

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讜专 诇讛专爪讜转 诪注讜转 讻谞讙讚 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讜讻讬 谞专 拽讚讜砖讛 讬砖 讘讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻讬 讚诐 拽讚讜砖讛 讬砖 讘讜 讚转谞讬讗 讜砖驻讱 讜讻住讛 讘诪讛 砖砖驻讱 讬讻住讛 砖诇讗 讬讻住谞讜 讘专讙诇 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪爪讜转 讘讝讜讬讜转 注诇讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪爪讜转 讘讝讜讬讜转 注诇讬讜:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said that Rav said: It is prohibited to count money opposite a Hanukkah light. Rav Yehuda relates: When I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me: Does the Hanukkah light have sanctity that would prohibit one from using its light? Rav Yosef strongly objected to this question: What kind of question is that; does the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated animal or fowl have sanctity? As it was taught in a baraita that the Sages interpreted the verse: 鈥He shall spill its blood and cover it with dust鈥 (Leviticus 17:13): With that which he spilled, he shall cover. Just as a person spills the blood of a slaughtered animal with his hand, so too, he is obligated to cover the blood with this hand and not cover it with his foot. The reason is so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. Here too, one should treat the Hanukkah lights as if they were sacred and refrain from utilizing them for other purposes, so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讛讜 诇讛住转驻拽 诪谞讜讬讬 住讜讻讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇讛专爪讜转 诪注讜转 讻谞讙讚 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讬讛 讚讗讘专讛诐 转诇讬 转谞讬讗 讘讚诇讗 转谞讬讗 住讜讻讛 转谞讬讗 讞谞讜讻讛 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 住讻讻讛 讻讛诇讻转讛 讜注讬讟专讛 讘拽专诪讬诐 讜讘住讚讬谞讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讜转诇讛 讘讛 讗讙讜讝讬诐 讗驻专住拽讬谉 砖拽讚讬诐 讜专诪讜谞讬诐 讜驻专讻讬诇讬 注谞讘讬诐 讜注讟专讜转 砖诇 砖讘诇讬诐 讬讬谞讜转 (砖诇) 砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讗住讜专 诇讛住转驻拽 诪讛谉 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讜讗诐 讛转谞讛 注诇讬讛谉 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 转谞讗讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讘讜讛讜谉 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讚诐:

The Gemara relates that they raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What is the halakha with regard to using decorations of a sukka all seven days of the festival of Sukkot? He said to them: They already said in a similar vein that it is prohibited to count money opposite the Hanukkah light, which proves that one may not use the object of a mitzva for another purpose. Rav Yosef replied in surprise: Master of Abraham! He makes that which was taught dependent upon that which was not taught. As, with regard to sukka, the prohibition to enjoy use of its decorations was taught in a baraita, and the prohibition to enjoy use of the Hanukkah lights was not taught in a baraita at all. As it was taught in a Tosefta in tractate Sukka: With regard to one who roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements, and decorated it with colorful curtains and sheets, and hung in it ornamental nuts, peaches, almonds, and pomegranates, and grape branches [parkilei], and wreaths of stalks of grain, wines, oils, and vessels full of flour, it is prohibited to use them until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival. And, if before he hung the decorations he stipulated with regard to them that he will be permitted to use them even during the Festival, everything is according to his stipulation, and he is permitted to use them. In any case, since the prohibition to benefit from the Hanukkah light is not explicitly taught, a proof should not be cited from there to resolve the dilemma with regard to sukka decorations. Rather, Rav Yosef said: There is no need to bring a proof for the halakhot of sukka from the Hanukkah light. Rather, the paradigm of them all is blood. The verse with regard to the covering of the blood of slaughter is the original source from which the prohibition to treat mitzvot with contempt is derived.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪转讬专讬谉 爪讬爪讬转 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛

It was stated in a dispute between amoraim that Rav said: One may not light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp. And Shmuel said: One may light in that manner. The Gemara cites additional disputes between Rav and Shmuel. Rav said: One may not untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment. And Shmuel said: One may untie them from one garment and affix them to another garment. And Rav said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging, as Rabbi Shimon permitted dragging objects on Shabbat, even if, as a result, a furrow would be dug in the ground, as it was not the person鈥檚 intent to dig that hole. Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚诪专 注讘讬讚 讻专讘 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚注讘讬讚 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专 讜诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙讜专专 讗讚诐 诪讟讛 讻住讗 讜住驻住诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞专讬抓

Abaye said: In all halakhic matters of the Master, Rabba, he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except these three where he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. He ruled: One may light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp, and one may untie ritual fringes from garment to garment, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, and bench on the ground, as long as he does not intend to make a furrow in the ground. Even if a furrow is formed inadvertently, one need not be concerned.

讬转讬讘 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讝讜讬 诪爪讜讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 转爪讬转讜 诇讬讛 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讻讞讬砖 诪爪讜讛 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讗 诪讚诇讬拽 诪砖专讙讗 诇砖专讙讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讝讜讬 诪爪讜讛 诪砖专讙讗 诇砖专讙讗 诪讚诇讬拽 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讻讞讜砖讬 诪爪讜讛 诪砖专讙讗 诇砖专讙讗 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

One of the Sages sat before Rav Adda bar Ahava, and he sat and said: The reason for the opinion of Rav, who prohibited lighting from one Hanukkah lamp to another, is due to contempt for the mitzva. Using the light for a purpose other than illumination demeans the mitzva of Hanukkah lights. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to his students: Do not listen to him, as the reason for Rav鈥檚 opinion is due to the fact that he thereby weakens the mitzva. By lighting from lamp to lamp he slightly diminishes the oil and wick designated for the purpose of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where he lights directly from lamp to lamp, without using a wood chip or another lamp to light the second lamp. According to the one who said that Rav鈥檚 reason is due to contempt for the mitzva, directly from lamp to lamp he may even light ab initio, as, by lighting another Hanukkah lamp, he does not thereby demean the sanctity of the mitzva because the second lamp is also a mitzva. According to the one who said that Rav鈥檚 reason is because he weakens the mitzva, lighting directly from lamp to lamp is also prohibited, as ultimately, he utilizes the mitzva lamp for a task that he could have accomplished with a non-sacred lamp.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜讬讗 住诇注 砖诇

Rav Avya raised an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: A sela of

诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗讬谉 砖讜拽诇讬谉 讻谞讙讚讜 讚谞专讬 讝讛讘 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞诇诇 注诇讬讜 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗讞专 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞专 诇谞专 讗讘诇 讘拽讬谞住讗 讗住专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 诇讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘拽讬谞住讗 谞诪讬 砖专讬 讛讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬讻讜讬谉 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讜拽讗 诪驻讬拽 诇讛讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉

the second tithe, one may not weigh gold dinars with it in order to determine their precise weight. And doing so is prohibited even if he is weighing the coin in order to redeem other second-tithe produce with it, as one may not derive benefit from tithe money. The Gemara discusses this matter: Granted, if you say that when Rav and Shmuel disagree it is with regard to a case when one lights from lamp to lamp, but with a wood chip, Shmuel prohibits lighting, this will not be a conclusive refutation of Shmuel鈥檚 opinion. But if you say that he permits lighting from lamp to lamp with a wood chip as well, this would be a conclusive refutation of his opinion, as the Sages did not permit use of and benefit from a sacred object even for the purpose of a similar sacred need. Rabba said: This is not difficult, as in the case of weighing tithe money the Sages prohibited doing so as a decree lest the weights not be precisely equal. One will discover that the weight of the gold dinars is not equal to the weight of the sela that he used to weigh them, and he will reconsider and render them unsanctified, i.e., they will maintain their original, non-sacred status. In that case, he will have used the tithe money for an unsanctified purpose. However, when one lights even a wood chip for the purpose of Hanukkah lights, it is clear that it is for the purpose of performing a mitzva, and there is no reason to issue a decree.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 诪讞讜抓 诇驻专讜讻转 讛注讚讜转 讬注专讜讱 讜讻讬 诇讗讜专讛 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱 讜讛诇讗 讻诇 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 砖讛诇讻讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜专讜 讗诇讗 注讚讜转 讛讬讗 诇讘讗讬 注讜诇诐 砖讛砖讻讬谞讛 砖讜专讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 注讚讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 谞专 诪注专讘讬 砖谞讜转谉 讘讛 砖诪谉 讻诪讚转 讞讘专讜转讬讛 讜诪诪谞讛 讛讬讛 诪讚诇讬拽 讜讘讛 讛讬讛 诪住讬讬诐 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讘讬注讬 谞专讜转 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 诪砖拽讬诇 讜讗讚诇讜拽讬 拽砖讬讗 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讜讬 诪爪讜讛 讜讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讻讞讜砖讬 诪爪讜讛

Rav Sheshet raised an objection from that which was taught in a baraita. With regard to the Temple candelabrum, it is stated: 鈥淥utside the veil of the testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, shall Aaron order it from evening to morning before the Lord continually; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations鈥 (Leviticus 24:3). It must be understood: And does God require its light for illumination at night? Didn鈥檛 the children of Israel, all forty years that they walked in the wilderness, walk exclusively by His light, the pillar of fire? Rather, the lighting of the candelabrum is testimony to mankind that the Divine Presence rests among Israel. The Gemara asks: What is this testimony? Rav said: That is the westernmost lamp in the candelabrum in which the measure of oil placed was the same measure of oil as was placed in the other lamps, and nevertheless he would light the others from it each day and with it he would conclude, i.e., the westernmost lamp would continue burning throughout the day after all the others were extinguished. The rest of the lamps burned only at night, and each night he would relight the rest of the lamps from the westernmost lamp. But isn鈥檛 it true that here, in the Temple, since the lamps were fixed in the candelabrum, it was impossible to light directly from lamp to lamp? There was no alternative to taking a wood chip and lighting the rest of the lamps from the westernmost lamp. Consequently, it is difficult both according to the one who said that one may not light from lamp to lamp due to contempt for the mitzva and according to the one who said that one may not light from lamp to lamp due to weakening the mitzva.

转专讙诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讘驻转讬诇讜转 讗专讜讻讜转 住讜祝 住讜祝 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讻讞讜砖讬 诪爪讜讛 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗

Rav Pappa explained that it need not necessarily be understood that way. Rather, there were long wicks in the candelabrum, which made it possible to reach and light directly from one lamp to another. However, ultimately, according to the one who said that one may not light from lamp to lamp due to weakening the mitzva, it is difficult. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, the question remains difficult.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讝讬谞讗 讗讬 讛讚诇拽讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专 讜讗讬 讛谞讞讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专

In summary, the Gemara asks: What is the halakhic conclusion reached about this matter in terms of lighting from lamp to lamp? Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, said: We see; if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that kindling the Hanukkah light accomplishes the mitzva and the rest is secondary, one may light from lamp to lamp. The lighting itself is the essence of the mitzva of Hanukkah lights. And if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that placing the lit lamp in a suitable place accomplishes the mitzva, then one may not light from lamp to lamp. According to that opinion, lighting is simply an auxiliary action that facilitates the fulfillment of the essence of the mitzva, which is placing the lamp in a place where its light can be seen by the public. Since lighting is merely a preparatory action, one may not demean the mitzva by lighting from lamp to lamp.

讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讚诇拽讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讗讜 讛谞讞讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛

After the issue of whether lighting accomplishes the mitzva or placing accomplishes the mitzva was raised in the context of the previous discussion, the Gemara cites the discussion in its entirety. As a dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of the Hanukkah light, does lighting accomplish the mitzva, and placing the lit lamp is simply a continuation of that action, or does placing the kindled lamp accomplish the mitzva, and lighting is simply a practical necessity that facilitates placing the lamp?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讛 转驻讜砖 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛谞讞讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讛转诐 讛专讜讗讛 讗讜诪专 诇爪讜专讻讜 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from that which Rava said: One who was holding a burning Hanukkah lamp in his hand and standing, he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva. Conclude from this that placing accomplishes the mitzva. Until he sets the lamp down in its appropriate place, he did not fulfill the mitzva. The Gemara rejects this: There, they said that he did not fulfill his obligation for a different reason. One who sees it will say that he is not holding the lamp in order to fulfill the mitzva, but he is holding it for his own needs. Since holding the lamp can mislead onlookers, he does not fulfill the mitzva in that manner.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讚诇拽讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讚诇拽讛 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讘注讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讛谞讞讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛专讜讗讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇爪讜专讻讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讚诇拽讛

Come and hear another resolution for this dilemma from that which Rava said: One who lights the Hanukkah lamp inside the house and then takes it out and places it at the entrance to his house did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva. Granted, if you say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva it is understandable, as lighting in its place is required. That is why Rava ruled that he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva. However, if you say that placing accomplishes the mitzva, why did Rava rule that he did nothing? Didn鈥檛 he set it down in its appropriate place? The Gemara answers: There too, even though he subsequently brought it outside, one who sees him lighting inside will say to himself that he is lighting the lamp for his own needs and not in fulfillment of the mitzva.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬

Come and hear another resolution from that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

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's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Weaving Wisdom

Rabbis, Archaeologist and Linguists

In the Daf Yomi, we see many interesting discussions about ancient vessels and other types of furnishings and tools.聽 An...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 22: Repurposing Chanukah Candles? Nope

Chanukah is still underway, but we can wax philosophical here, amongst the halakhic details about not reusing even the flame...

Shabbat 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 22

谞专 砖诇 讞谞讜讻讛 砖讛谞讬讞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讻住讜讻讛 讜讻诪讘讜讬: 讜讗诪专 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 转谞讞讜诐 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讜专 专拽 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讬诐 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讘讜专 专拽 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讬诐 诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讘诇 谞讞砖讬诐 讜注拽专讘讬诐 讬砖 讘讜:

A Hanukkah lamp that one placed above twenty cubits is invalid, just as a sukka whose roofing is more than twenty cubits high, and just as an alleyway whose beam, its symbolic fourth partition in order to place an eiruv, is more than twenty cubits high, are invalid. The reason is the same in all three cases: People do not usually raise their heads and see objects at a height above twenty cubits. As there is a requirement to see all of these, they are deemed invalid when placed above that height. And the Gemara cites another statement that Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rav Tan岣m: What is the meaning of the verse that is written with regard to Joseph: 鈥淎nd they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it鈥 (Genesis 37:24)? By inference from that which is stated: And the pit was empty, don鈥檛 I know that there was no water in it? Rather, why does the verse say: There was no water in it? The verse comes to emphasize and teach that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it.

讗诪专 专讘讛 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讛谞讬讞讛 讘讟驻讞 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇驻转讞 讜讛讬讻讗 诪谞讞 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬诪讬谉 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讚驻转讬 讗诪专 诪砖诪讗诇 讜讛讬诇讻转讗 诪砖诪讗诇 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 诪砖诪讗诇 讜诪讝讜讝讛 诪讬诪讬谉:

Rabba said: It is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp within the handbreadth adjacent to the entrance. The Gemara asks: And where, on which side, does he place it? There is a difference of opinion: Rav A岣, son of Rava, said: On the right side of the entrance. Rav Shmuel from Difti said: On the left. And the halakha is to place it on the left so that the Hanukkah lamp will be on the left and the mezuza on the right. One who enters the house will be surrounded by mitzvot (ge鈥檕nim).

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讜专 诇讛专爪讜转 诪注讜转 讻谞讙讚 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讜讻讬 谞专 拽讚讜砖讛 讬砖 讘讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讻讬 讚诐 拽讚讜砖讛 讬砖 讘讜 讚转谞讬讗 讜砖驻讱 讜讻住讛 讘诪讛 砖砖驻讱 讬讻住讛 砖诇讗 讬讻住谞讜 讘专讙诇 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪爪讜转 讘讝讜讬讜转 注诇讬讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪爪讜转 讘讝讜讬讜转 注诇讬讜:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said that Rav said: It is prohibited to count money opposite a Hanukkah light. Rav Yehuda relates: When I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me: Does the Hanukkah light have sanctity that would prohibit one from using its light? Rav Yosef strongly objected to this question: What kind of question is that; does the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated animal or fowl have sanctity? As it was taught in a baraita that the Sages interpreted the verse: 鈥He shall spill its blood and cover it with dust鈥 (Leviticus 17:13): With that which he spilled, he shall cover. Just as a person spills the blood of a slaughtered animal with his hand, so too, he is obligated to cover the blood with this hand and not cover it with his foot. The reason is so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. Here too, one should treat the Hanukkah lights as if they were sacred and refrain from utilizing them for other purposes, so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讛讜 诇讛住转驻拽 诪谞讜讬讬 住讜讻讛 讻诇 砖讘注讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讗住讜专 诇讛专爪讜转 诪注讜转 讻谞讙讚 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讬讛 讚讗讘专讛诐 转诇讬 转谞讬讗 讘讚诇讗 转谞讬讗 住讜讻讛 转谞讬讗 讞谞讜讻讛 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 住讻讻讛 讻讛诇讻转讛 讜注讬讟专讛 讘拽专诪讬诐 讜讘住讚讬谞讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讜转诇讛 讘讛 讗讙讜讝讬诐 讗驻专住拽讬谉 砖拽讚讬诐 讜专诪讜谞讬诐 讜驻专讻讬诇讬 注谞讘讬诐 讜注讟专讜转 砖诇 砖讘诇讬诐 讬讬谞讜转 (砖诇) 砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讗住讜专 诇讛住转驻拽 诪讛谉 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讜讗诐 讛转谞讛 注诇讬讛谉 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 转谞讗讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讘讜讛讜谉 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讚诐:

The Gemara relates that they raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What is the halakha with regard to using decorations of a sukka all seven days of the festival of Sukkot? He said to them: They already said in a similar vein that it is prohibited to count money opposite the Hanukkah light, which proves that one may not use the object of a mitzva for another purpose. Rav Yosef replied in surprise: Master of Abraham! He makes that which was taught dependent upon that which was not taught. As, with regard to sukka, the prohibition to enjoy use of its decorations was taught in a baraita, and the prohibition to enjoy use of the Hanukkah lights was not taught in a baraita at all. As it was taught in a Tosefta in tractate Sukka: With regard to one who roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements, and decorated it with colorful curtains and sheets, and hung in it ornamental nuts, peaches, almonds, and pomegranates, and grape branches [parkilei], and wreaths of stalks of grain, wines, oils, and vessels full of flour, it is prohibited to use them until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival. And, if before he hung the decorations he stipulated with regard to them that he will be permitted to use them even during the Festival, everything is according to his stipulation, and he is permitted to use them. In any case, since the prohibition to benefit from the Hanukkah light is not explicitly taught, a proof should not be cited from there to resolve the dilemma with regard to sukka decorations. Rather, Rav Yosef said: There is no need to bring a proof for the halakhot of sukka from the Hanukkah light. Rather, the paradigm of them all is blood. The verse with regard to the covering of the blood of slaughter is the original source from which the prohibition to treat mitzvot with contempt is derived.

讗讬转诪专 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪转讬专讬谉 爪讬爪讬转 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛

It was stated in a dispute between amoraim that Rav said: One may not light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp. And Shmuel said: One may light in that manner. The Gemara cites additional disputes between Rav and Shmuel. Rav said: One may not untie ritual fringes from one garment in order to affix them to another garment. And Shmuel said: One may untie them from one garment and affix them to another garment. And Rav said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging, as Rabbi Shimon permitted dragging objects on Shabbat, even if, as a result, a furrow would be dug in the ground, as it was not the person鈥檚 intent to dig that hole. Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚诪专 注讘讬讚 讻专讘 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚注讘讬讚 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专 讜诪转讬专讬谉 诪讘讙讚 诇讘讙讚 讜讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讙专讬专讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讙讜专专 讗讚诐 诪讟讛 讻住讗 讜住驻住诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讞专讬抓

Abaye said: In all halakhic matters of the Master, Rabba, he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Rav, except these three where he conducted himself in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. He ruled: One may light from one Hanukkah lamp to another lamp, and one may untie ritual fringes from garment to garment, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of dragging. As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: A person may drag a bed, chair, and bench on the ground, as long as he does not intend to make a furrow in the ground. Even if a furrow is formed inadvertently, one need not be concerned.

讬转讬讘 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讝讜讬 诪爪讜讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 转爪讬转讜 诇讬讛 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讻讞讬砖 诪爪讜讛 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讗 诪讚诇讬拽 诪砖专讙讗 诇砖专讙讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讝讜讬 诪爪讜讛 诪砖专讙讗 诇砖专讙讗 诪讚诇讬拽 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讻讞讜砖讬 诪爪讜讛 诪砖专讙讗 诇砖专讙讗 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

One of the Sages sat before Rav Adda bar Ahava, and he sat and said: The reason for the opinion of Rav, who prohibited lighting from one Hanukkah lamp to another, is due to contempt for the mitzva. Using the light for a purpose other than illumination demeans the mitzva of Hanukkah lights. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to his students: Do not listen to him, as the reason for Rav鈥檚 opinion is due to the fact that he thereby weakens the mitzva. By lighting from lamp to lamp he slightly diminishes the oil and wick designated for the purpose of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where he lights directly from lamp to lamp, without using a wood chip or another lamp to light the second lamp. According to the one who said that Rav鈥檚 reason is due to contempt for the mitzva, directly from lamp to lamp he may even light ab initio, as, by lighting another Hanukkah lamp, he does not thereby demean the sanctity of the mitzva because the second lamp is also a mitzva. According to the one who said that Rav鈥檚 reason is because he weakens the mitzva, lighting directly from lamp to lamp is also prohibited, as ultimately, he utilizes the mitzva lamp for a task that he could have accomplished with a non-sacred lamp.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜讬讗 住诇注 砖诇

Rav Avya raised an objection from that which was taught in a Tosefta: A sela of

诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗讬谉 砖讜拽诇讬谉 讻谞讙讚讜 讚谞专讬 讝讛讘 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讞诇诇 注诇讬讜 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗讞专 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞专 诇谞专 讗讘诇 讘拽讬谞住讗 讗住专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 诇讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘拽讬谞住讗 谞诪讬 砖专讬 讛讗 转讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 诇讗 讬讻讜讬谉 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讜拽讗 诪驻讬拽 诇讛讜 诇讞讜诇讬谉

the second tithe, one may not weigh gold dinars with it in order to determine their precise weight. And doing so is prohibited even if he is weighing the coin in order to redeem other second-tithe produce with it, as one may not derive benefit from tithe money. The Gemara discusses this matter: Granted, if you say that when Rav and Shmuel disagree it is with regard to a case when one lights from lamp to lamp, but with a wood chip, Shmuel prohibits lighting, this will not be a conclusive refutation of Shmuel鈥檚 opinion. But if you say that he permits lighting from lamp to lamp with a wood chip as well, this would be a conclusive refutation of his opinion, as the Sages did not permit use of and benefit from a sacred object even for the purpose of a similar sacred need. Rabba said: This is not difficult, as in the case of weighing tithe money the Sages prohibited doing so as a decree lest the weights not be precisely equal. One will discover that the weight of the gold dinars is not equal to the weight of the sela that he used to weigh them, and he will reconsider and render them unsanctified, i.e., they will maintain their original, non-sacred status. In that case, he will have used the tithe money for an unsanctified purpose. However, when one lights even a wood chip for the purpose of Hanukkah lights, it is clear that it is for the purpose of performing a mitzva, and there is no reason to issue a decree.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 诪讞讜抓 诇驻专讜讻转 讛注讚讜转 讬注专讜讱 讜讻讬 诇讗讜专讛 讛讜讗 爪专讬讱 讜讛诇讗 讻诇 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 砖讛诇讻讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜专讜 讗诇讗 注讚讜转 讛讬讗 诇讘讗讬 注讜诇诐 砖讛砖讻讬谞讛 砖讜专讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 注讚讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讝讜 谞专 诪注专讘讬 砖谞讜转谉 讘讛 砖诪谉 讻诪讚转 讞讘专讜转讬讛 讜诪诪谞讛 讛讬讛 诪讚诇讬拽 讜讘讛 讛讬讛 诪住讬讬诐 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讘讬注讬 谞专讜转 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 诪砖拽讬诇 讜讗讚诇讜拽讬 拽砖讬讗 讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讘讝讜讬 诪爪讜讛 讜讘讬谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讻讞讜砖讬 诪爪讜讛

Rav Sheshet raised an objection from that which was taught in a baraita. With regard to the Temple candelabrum, it is stated: 鈥淥utside the veil of the testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, shall Aaron order it from evening to morning before the Lord continually; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations鈥 (Leviticus 24:3). It must be understood: And does God require its light for illumination at night? Didn鈥檛 the children of Israel, all forty years that they walked in the wilderness, walk exclusively by His light, the pillar of fire? Rather, the lighting of the candelabrum is testimony to mankind that the Divine Presence rests among Israel. The Gemara asks: What is this testimony? Rav said: That is the westernmost lamp in the candelabrum in which the measure of oil placed was the same measure of oil as was placed in the other lamps, and nevertheless he would light the others from it each day and with it he would conclude, i.e., the westernmost lamp would continue burning throughout the day after all the others were extinguished. The rest of the lamps burned only at night, and each night he would relight the rest of the lamps from the westernmost lamp. But isn鈥檛 it true that here, in the Temple, since the lamps were fixed in the candelabrum, it was impossible to light directly from lamp to lamp? There was no alternative to taking a wood chip and lighting the rest of the lamps from the westernmost lamp. Consequently, it is difficult both according to the one who said that one may not light from lamp to lamp due to contempt for the mitzva and according to the one who said that one may not light from lamp to lamp due to weakening the mitzva.

转专讙诪讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讘驻转讬诇讜转 讗专讜讻讜转 住讜祝 住讜祝 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讻讞讜砖讬 诪爪讜讛 拽砖讬讗 拽砖讬讗

Rav Pappa explained that it need not necessarily be understood that way. Rather, there were long wicks in the candelabrum, which made it possible to reach and light directly from one lamp to another. However, ultimately, according to the one who said that one may not light from lamp to lamp due to weakening the mitzva, it is difficult. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, the question remains difficult.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讞讝讬谞讗 讗讬 讛讚诇拽讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专 讜讗讬 讛谞讞讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 诪谞专 诇谞专

In summary, the Gemara asks: What is the halakhic conclusion reached about this matter in terms of lighting from lamp to lamp? Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, said: We see; if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that kindling the Hanukkah light accomplishes the mitzva and the rest is secondary, one may light from lamp to lamp. The lighting itself is the essence of the mitzva of Hanukkah lights. And if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that placing the lit lamp in a suitable place accomplishes the mitzva, then one may not light from lamp to lamp. According to that opinion, lighting is simply an auxiliary action that facilitates the fulfillment of the essence of the mitzva, which is placing the lamp in a place where its light can be seen by the public. Since lighting is merely a preparatory action, one may not demean the mitzva by lighting from lamp to lamp.

讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讚诇拽讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讗讜 讛谞讞讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛

After the issue of whether lighting accomplishes the mitzva or placing accomplishes the mitzva was raised in the context of the previous discussion, the Gemara cites the discussion in its entirety. As a dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of the Hanukkah light, does lighting accomplish the mitzva, and placing the lit lamp is simply a continuation of that action, or does placing the kindled lamp accomplish the mitzva, and lighting is simply a practical necessity that facilitates placing the lamp?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讛 转驻讜砖 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛谞讞讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讛转诐 讛专讜讗讛 讗讜诪专 诇爪讜专讻讜 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from that which Rava said: One who was holding a burning Hanukkah lamp in his hand and standing, he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva. Conclude from this that placing accomplishes the mitzva. Until he sets the lamp down in its appropriate place, he did not fulfill the mitzva. The Gemara rejects this: There, they said that he did not fulfill his obligation for a different reason. One who sees it will say that he is not holding the lamp in order to fulfill the mitzva, but he is holding it for his own needs. Since holding the lamp can mislead onlookers, he does not fulfill the mitzva in that manner.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗讛 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讚诇拽讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讚诇拽讛 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讘注讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 注砖讛 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讛谞讞讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛专讜讗讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇爪讜专讻讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讚诇拽讛

Come and hear another resolution for this dilemma from that which Rava said: One who lights the Hanukkah lamp inside the house and then takes it out and places it at the entrance to his house did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva. Granted, if you say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva it is understandable, as lighting in its place is required. That is why Rava ruled that he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva. However, if you say that placing accomplishes the mitzva, why did Rava rule that he did nothing? Didn鈥檛 he set it down in its appropriate place? The Gemara answers: There too, even though he subsequently brought it outside, one who sees him lighting inside will say to himself that he is lighting the lamp for his own needs and not in fulfillment of the mitzva.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬

Come and hear another resolution from that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

Scroll To Top