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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 29, 2020 | 讚壮 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 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 23

Today’s shiur is dedicated by Heather Stone in memory of Debbie bat Shirley z”l, the best friend of her Aunt, Debbie Stone, who passed away before Shabbat from COVID19.聽

The gemara concludes that the mitzva is the lighting of the Chanika candles and not placing them down. Women are obligated in the mitzva of the Chanuka candles as they too were part of the miracle. In what way? Best to use olive oil for lighting Chanuka candles, even though all other oils can also be used. Same with preparing ink. How many blessings does one make on Chanuka candles? Which ones? What about a person who sees Chanuka candles? Do they make blessings? Which ones? How can be say the blessing “who commanded us” if Chanuka is not a Torah obligation? What is the determining factor for which rabbinic commandments we make blessings and on which do we not? If one has two different entraceways for one’s courtyard, does one need to light in both entrances? On what does it depend? Why are we concerned about what others will think – where is there precendent for that? It is learned from pe’ah – the mitzva of leaving the corner of one’s field for the poor. How? What has precedence (if one can’t afford all) Shabbat candles, Chanuka candles and woine for kiddush? The gemara relates good things that will happen to people who light Shabbat and Chanuka candles (and some other mitzvot). The gemara explains what is “sereifa” oil mentioned in the mishna gives two different explanations as to why it is forbidden.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

注砖砖讬转 砖讛讬转讛 讚讜诇拽转 讜讛讜诇讻转 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诪讻讘讛 讜诪讚诇讬拽讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讚诇拽讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讛谞讞讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讗讬 诪讻讘讛 讜诪讚诇讬拽讛 诪讻讘讛 讜诪讙讘讬讛讛 讜诪谞讬讞讛 讜诪讚诇讬拽讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 诪讚拽讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 诇讛讚诇讬拽 谞专 砖诇 讞谞讜讻讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讚诇拽讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

A lantern that continued to burn the entire day of Shabbat, at the conclusion of Shabbat one extinguishes it and lights it again as a Hanukkah light. Granted, if you say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, the requirement to extinguish the lantern and relight it in order to fulfill the mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah light works out well. However, if you say that placing accomplishes the mitzva, this statement, which stated that one extinguishes it and lights it, is imprecise. According to this opinion, it needed to say: One extinguishes it and lifts it from its place and sets it down and lights it, as only by placing the lamp in an appropriate place could one fulfill the mitzva of the Hanukkah light. Furthermore, there is additional proof that lighting accomplishes the mitzva. From the fact that we recite the following blessing over the mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah light: Who has made us holy through His commandments and has commanded us to light the Hanukkah light, the Gemara suggests: Conclude from this that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, as it is over lighting that one recites the blessing. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讚诇拽讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗砖讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讚诇讬拽讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 砖讗祝 讛谉 讛讬讜 讘讗讜转讜 讛谞住:

And, the Gemara remarks, now that we say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, there are practical ramifications. If a deafmute, an imbecile, or a minor, all of whom are of limited intellectual capacity and not obligated in mitzvot, kindled the Hanukkah light, he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva, even if an adult obligated in mitzvot subsequently set it down in its appropriate place. That is because placing a lit lamp does not constitute fulfillment of the mitzva. The lighting must be performed by a person with full intellectual capacity, obligated in mitzvot. However, a woman certainly may light, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in lighting the Hanukkah light, as they too were included in that miracle of being saved from the decree of persecution.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗讻住谞讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讬砖 讻讬 讛讜讬谞讗 讘讬 专讘 诪砖转转驻谞讗 讘驻专讬讟讬 讘讛讚讬 讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 讘转专 讚谞住讬讘讬 讗讬转转讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讛砖转讗 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻谞讗 讚拽讗 诪讚诇讬拽讬 注诇讬 讘讙讜 讘讬转讗讬:

Rav Sheshet said: A guest is obligated in lighting the Hanukkah light in the place where he is being hosted. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira said: At first, when I was studying in the yeshiva, I would participate with perutot, copper coins, together with the host [ushpiza], so that I would be a partner in the light that he kindled. After I married my wife, I said: Now I certainly need not do so because they light on my behalf in my house.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讛砖诪谞讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讬驻讬谉 诇谞专 讜砖诪谉 讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪专讬砖 讛讜讛 诪讛讚专 诪专 讗诪砖讞讗 讚砖讜诪砖诪讬 讗诪专 讛讗讬 诪砖讱 谞讛讜专讬 讟驻讬 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讛讚专 讗诪砖讞讗 讚讝讬转讗 讗诪专 讛讗讬 爪诇讬诇 谞讛讜专讬讛 讟驻讬

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the oils are suitable for the Hanukkah lamp, and olive oil is the most select of the oils. Abaye said: At first, my Master, Rabba, would seek sesame oil, as he said: The light of sesame oil lasts longer and does not burn as quickly as olive oil. Once he heard that statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he sought olive oil because he said: Its light is clearer.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讛砖诪谞讬诐 讬驻讬谉 诇讚讬讜 讜砖诪谉 讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讙讘诇 讗讜 诇注砖谉 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讝讜讟专讬 讻诇 讛砖诪谞讬诐 讬驻讬谉 诇讚讬讜 讜砖诪谉 讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讘讬谉 诇讙讘诇 讘讬谉 诇注砖谉 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讝讜讟专讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 讛注砖谞讬诐 讬驻讬谉 诇讚讬讜 讜砖诪谉 讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇 讛砖专驻讬谉 讬驻讬谉 诇讚讬讜 讜砖专祝 拽讟祝 讬驻讛 诪讻讜诇诐:

On a similar note, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the oils are suitable for making ink, and olive oil is the most select. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 intention: Did he mean that olive oil is the most select in terms of being the best for use to mix and knead with the soot produced from a fire in manufacturing ink; or did he mean for use to smoke, i.e., burning olive oil to produce smoke is the most select method of producing the soot used in manufacturing ink? Come and hear a resolution to this from that which Rav Shmuel bar Zutrei taught: All oils are suitable for ink, and olive oil is the most select, both to knead and to smoke. Rav Shmuel bar Zutra taught it this way: All types of smoke are good for ink, and olive oil is the most select. Similarly, Rav Huna said: All saps are good for strengthening the ink compound, and balsam sap is the best of all.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讚诇讬拽 谞专 砖诇 讞谞讜讻讛 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讛专讜讗讛 谞专 砖诇 讞谞讜讻讛 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讛专讜讗讛 诪讘专讱 砖转讬诐 讜诪讚诇讬拽 诪讘专讱 砖诇砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪讚诇讬拽 诪讘专讱 砖转讬诐 讜专讜讗讛 诪讘专讱 讗讞转 诪讗讬 诪诪注讟 诪诪注讟 讝诪谉 讜谞讬诪注讜讟 谞住 谞住 讻诇 讬讜诪讬 讗讬转讬讛

Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One who lights a Hanukkah light must recite a blessing. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: One who sees a burning Hanukkah light must recite a blessing because the mitzva is not only to kindle the light but to see the light as well. Therefore, there is room to recite a blessing even when seeing them. Rav Yehuda said: On the first day of Hanukkah, the one who sees burning lights recites two blessings, and the one who lights recites three blessings. From there on, from the second day of Hanukkah, the one who lights recites two blessings, and the one who sees recites one blessing. The Gemara asks: What blessing does he omit on the other days? The Gemara answers: He omits the blessing of time: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. The Gemara asks: And let us omit the blessing of the miracle: Who has performed miracles. The Gemara answers: The miracle is relevant on all of the days, whereas the blessing: Who has given us life, is only pertinent to the first time he performs the mitzva each year.

诪讗讬 诪讘专讱 诪讘专讱 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 诇讛讚诇讬拽 谞专 砖诇 讞谞讜讻讛 讜讛讬讻谉 爪讜谞讜 专讘 讗讜讬讗 讗诪专 诪诇讗 转住讜专 专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖讗诇 讗讘讬讱 讜讬讙讚讱 讝拽谞讬讱 讜讬讗诪专讜 诇讱

And what blessing does one recite? He recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments and has commanded us to light the Hanukkah light. The Gemara asks: And where did He command us? The mitzva of Hanukkah is not mentioned in the Torah, so how is it possible to say that it was commanded to us by God? The Gemara answers that Rav Avya said: The obligation to recite this blessing is derived from the verse: 鈥You shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto you, to the right, nor to the left鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:11). From this verse, the mitzva incumbent upon all of Israel to heed the statements and decrees of the Sages is derived. Therefore, one who fulfills their directives fulfills a divine commandment. Rav Ne岣mya said that the mitzva to heed the voice of the Elders of Israel is derived from the verse: 鈥淎sk your father, and he will declare unto you, your Elders, and they will tell you鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:7).

诪转讬讘 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讚诪讗讬 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讜 讜诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘讜 讜诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 注专讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讘注讬 讘专讻讛 讛讻讗 讻讬 拽讗讬 注专讜诐 讛讬讻讬 诪讘专讱 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讬讛 诪讞谞讬讱 拽讚讜砖 讜诇讬讻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讚讗讬 讚讚讘专讬讛诐 讘注讬 讘专讻讛 住驻拽 讚讚讘专讬讛诐 诇讗 讘注讬 讘专讻讛

Rav Amram raised an objection from that which we learned in a mishna: With regard to doubtfully tithed produce [demai], i.e., grain that was acquired from an am haaretz about which there is uncertainty whether or not he tithed it; one may use it to establish an eiruv, i.e., joining of courtyards and joining of borders, and to establish the merging of alleys, and one recites a blessing before and after eating it, and one invites a quorum for recitation of Grace after Meals after eating it. Although the Sages said that one is required to separate tithes from demai, they allowed it to be used for specific purposes and in exigent circumstances. And they said that one may separate the tithe from demai when he is naked and at dusk Shabbat eve, a time when separating tithes from actual untithed produce [tevel] is prohibited. And if you say that every action instituted by rabbinic ordinance requires a blessing, as fulfillment of rabbinic ordinances is based on the mitzva: You shall not turn aside, here, when he stands naked, how can he recite a blessing? Don鈥檛 we require fulfillment of the mitzva: 鈥淭herefore shall your camp be holy; that He see no unseemly thing in you, and turn away from you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15)? And the camp is not holy when one recites a blessing in a state of nakedness. Abaye said: There is room to distinguish between the cases: In a case where there is a definite mitzva by rabbinic law, a blessing is required. In a case where there is a rabbinic ordinance instituted due to uncertainty with regard to the circumstances, as in the case of demai, which may or may not have been tithed already, a blessing is not required.

讜讛讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 讚住驻拽 讚讘专讬讛诐 讛讜讗 讜讘注讬 讘专讻讛 讛转诐 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讝讬诇讝讜诇讬 讘讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讜讘 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诪注砖专讬谉 讛谉:

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 the second day of a Festival in the Diaspora a rabbinic ordinance instituted due to uncertainty whether the first day or the second is the actual Festival, and nevertheless a blessing is required? On the second day of the Festival one recites the same blessings as he does on the first. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the second day of the Festival, the reason that blessings are required is so that people will not treat it with contempt. If Festival blessings were not required on the second day of the Festival, people would take its sanctity lightly. Rava said another reason: Demai is not considered to be an ordinance instituted by the Sages due to uncertainty. In fact, in most cases, an am haaretz tithes. The concern lest they do not tithe is not a full-fledged case of uncertainty. It is merely a case of suspicion for which the Sages did not institute a blessing. That is not the case with regard to the second day of a Festival. Even though it was instituted due to uncertainty, one must recite the Festival blessings. Since it was instituted by the Sages, one is obligated to recite a blessing just as he recites blessings for other rabbinic ordinances.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞爪专 砖讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 驻转讞讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讬 谞专讜转 (讜讗诪专) 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 讗讘诇 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讗 讞砖讚讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞砖讚讗 讚注诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讞 讗讞转 谞诪讬 诇讬讘注讬 讗讬 讞砖讚讗 讚讘谞讬 诪转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖谞讬 专讜讞讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 诇注讜诇诐 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讗 讚讘谞讬 诪转讗 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讞诇驻讬 讘讛讗讬 讜诇讗 讞诇驻讬 讘讛讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讘讛讗讬 驻讬转讞讗 诇讗 讗讚诇讬拽 讘讛讱 驻讬转讞讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讚诇讬拽

Rav Huna said: A courtyard that has two entrances requires two lamps, one lamp at each entrance, so that it will be obvious that the residents of this courtyard light properly. And Rava said: We only said this in a case where the two entrances face two different directions. However, if they both face in the same direction one need not light at more than one entrance. The Gemara clarifies Rava鈥檚 statement: What is the reason for this? If you say that it is because those who see the entrance without a lamp burning will harbor suspicion lest he does not kindle the Hanukkah light, whose suspicion concerns us? If you say that the concern is with regard to the suspicion of people who do not live in the city and are unfamiliar with the courtyard鈥檚 tenants, even when both entrances face the same direction let them be required to light at both entrances because visitors are unaware that there are two entrances to that courtyard. And if the concern is with regard to the suspicion of the residents of that city, even when the two entrances face two different directions let them not be required to light at both entrances. The local residents know that only one person lives in the courtyard and will assume that if he did not light at one entrance he surely lit at the other. The Gemara answers: Actually, say that it is because of the suspicion of the residents of that city, and sometimes they pass this entrance and do not pass that one, and they say: Just as he did not light in this entrance, in that second entrance he also did not light. In order to avoid suspicion, it is preferable to light at both entrances.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讞砖讚 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖讘讬诇 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讛谞讬讞 驻讬讗讛 讘住讜祝 砖讚讛讜 诪驻谞讬 讙讝诇 注谞讬讬诐 讜诪驻谞讬 讘讬讟讜诇 注谞讬讬诐 讜诪驻谞讬 讛讞砖讚 讜诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讻诇讛 诪驻谞讬 讙讝诇 注谞讬讬诐 砖诇讗 讬专讗讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖注讛 驻谞讜讬讬讛 讜讬讗诪专 诇拽专讜讘讜 注谞讬 讛专讬 讝讜 驻讗讛

And from where do you say that we are concerned about suspicion? As it was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Shimon said: On account of four things the Torah said that one should leave pea, crops for the poor in the corner of his field, specifically at the end of his field. Only after one has cut virtually the entire field should he leave an uncut corner for the poor. He should not designate an area for pea in the middle of the field in the course of cutting the field. The reasons for this ruling are: Due to robbing the poor, and due to causing the poor to be idle, and due to suspicion, and due to the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not wholly reap the corner of your field鈥 (Leviticus 23:22). The Gemara explains: Due to robbing the poor; so that the owner of the house will not see a time when the field is unoccupied and there are no poor people in the area. If he could designate pea as he wished, there is room to suspect that he might say to his poor relative: This is pea, in the place and at the time that he chooses. He would thereby conceal the fact that there is pea in his field from other poor people. The result would be that, for all intents and purposes, he robbed pea from those with whom he did not share the information.

讜诪驻谞讬 讘讬讟讜诇 注谞讬讬诐 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 注谞讬讬诐 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜诪砖诪专讬谉 注讻砖讬讜 诪谞讬讞 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讗讛 讜诪驻谞讬 讞砖讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讬讜 注讜讘专讬谉 讜砖讘讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讘讗 诪讗专讛 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 驻讗讛 讘砖讚讛讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讻诇讛 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讻诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪驻谞讬 讛专诪讗讬谉:

And due to causing the poor to be idle; so that the poor, who have no way of knowing when he is going to cut the grain and where in the field he is going to leave the pea, will not be sitting and observing until he designates the pea and constantly saying to themselves: Now the owner of the field is placing pea. Now that he leaves the pea in a defined area at the end of his field, and the poor people know exactly where they can receive their portion, they need not waste their time in anticipation. And due to suspicion; if one leaves the pea in the middle of the field, the poor will come and take their portion immediately when he designates the area of pea. When the owner then continues to cut and harvest the rest of the grain in the field, the pea will not be noticeable. Insisting that he leave pea at the end of the field ensures that passersby will not say: A person who did not leave pea in his field should be cursed. We learned that the fourth reason is due to the verse: You shall not wholly reap. The Gemara wonders: Aren鈥檛 all of these reasons due to: You shall not wholly reap? All of the reasons explain that one may not reap his entire field and must leave pea at the end of his field. Rava said: The meaning of the last reason is that pe鈥檃 is separated that way due to cheaters. There is concern that a person would not leave pea at all. He would claim that he already separated it in the middle of his field and that the poor already came and took it. In order to bolster the mitzva of pea, the Sages instituted that it must be separated specifically at the end of one鈥檚 field. In terms of the discussion in the Gemara, apparently, the desire to avoid arousing suspicion is a factor taken into consideration in determining halakha.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 专讚讬驻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞专 砖讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 驻讬讜转 注讜诇讛 诇砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬诇讗 拽注专讛 砖诪谉 讜讛拽讬驻讛 驻转讬诇讜转 讻驻讛 注诇讬讛 讻诇讬 注讜诇讛 诇讻诪讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讗 讻驻讛 注诇讬讛 讻诇讬 注砖讗讛 讻诪讬谉 诪讚讜专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞讚 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 注讜诇讛:

Rav Yitz岣k bar Redifa said that Rav Huna said: Lighting an oil lamp that has two spouts, with one wick placed in each of the spouts, is considered to have fulfilled the obligation of kindling the Hanukkah light for two people. Similarly, Rava said: One who filled a bowl with oil and placed wicks all around it, if he overturned a vessel on top of it, it is considered to have fulfilled the obligation of lighting the Hanukkah light for several people, corresponding to the number of wicks. By overturning a vessel atop the bowl, each wick appears to be burning independently. If one did not overturn a vessel on top of it, he thereby made it appear like a type of bonfire. From afar, the light from all of the flames appear to be a single flame. And it is not even considered to have fulfilled the obligation of lighting the Hanukkah light for one person because the mitzva is specifically to light a flame and not a bonfire.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 谞专 讘讬转讜 讜谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 谞专 讘讬转讜 注讚讬祝 诪砖讜诐 砖诇讜诐 讘讬转讜 谞专 讘讬转讜 讜拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 谞专 讘讬转讜 注讚讬祝 诪砖讜诐 砖诇讜诐 讘讬转讜 讘注讬 专讘讗 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 讜拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 诪讛讜 拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 注讚讬祝 讚转讚讬专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 注讚讬祝 诪砖讜诐 驻专住讜诪讬 谞讬住讗 讘转专 讚讗讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 注讚讬祝 诪砖讜诐 驻专住讜诪讬 谞讬住讗:

Rava said: It is obvious to me that there is a fixed list of priorities. When a person is poor and must choose between purchasing oil to light a Shabbat lamp for his home or purchasing oil to light a Hanukkah lamp, the Shabbat lamp for his home takes precedence. That is due to peace in his home; without the light of that lamp, his family would be sitting and eating their meal in the dark. Similarly, if there is a conflict between acquiring oil to light a lamp for his home and wine for the sanctification [kiddush] of Shabbat day, the lamp for his home takes precedence due to peace in his home. However, Rava raised a dilemma: When the conflict is between oil for a Hanukkah lamp or wine for kiddush of Shabbat day, what is the ruling in that case? Does kiddush of Shabbat day take priority because it is frequent, i.e., it is performed every week, and there is a principle: When there is a conflict between a frequent practice and an infrequent practice, the frequent practice takes precedence? Or, perhaps the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle? After he raised the dilemma, he then resolved it on his own and he ruled that, in that case, the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛专讙讬诇 讘谞专 讛讜讬讬谉 诇讬讛 讘谞讬诐 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讝讛讬专 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讝讜讻讛 诇讚讬专讛 谞讗讛 讛讝讛讬专 讘爪讬爪讬转 讝讜讻讛 诇讟诇讬转 谞讗讛 讛讝讛讬专 讘拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 讝讜讻讛 讜诪诪诇讗 讙专讘讬 讬讬谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讚讛讜讛 讞诇讬祝 讜转谞讬 讗驻转讞讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 谞讙专讗 讞讝讗 讚讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讘砖专讙讬 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 转专讬 讙讘专讬 专讘专讘讬 谞驻拽讬 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讚讛讜讛 讞诇讬祝 讜转谞讬 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讗 讚专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讞讝讗 讚讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讘砖专讙讬 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 讙讘专讗 专讘讗 谞驻拽 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬

Rav Huna said: One who is accustomed to kindle lights on Shabbat and Hanukkah will be rewarded and have children who are Torah scholars, who will disseminate the light of Torah. One who is meticulous in performing the mitzva of mezuza merits a beautiful house on which to affix his mezuza. One who is meticulous in performing the mitzva of ritual fringes merits a beautiful garment. One who is meticulous in performing the mitzva of kiddush of the day merits and fills jugs of wine. The Gemara relates: Rav Huna was accustomed to pass by and teach at the entrance of the house of Rabbi Avin the carpenter. He saw that Rabbi Avin was accustomed to kindle many lights in honor of Shabbat. Rav Huna said: Two great men will emerge from here. Indeed, Rav Idi bar Avin and Rav 岣yya bar Avin, his two oldest sons, emerged from their family. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: Rav 岣sda was accustomed to pass by and teach at the entrance of Rav Sheizvi鈥檚 father鈥檚 family home. He saw that Rav Sheizvi鈥檚 father was accustomed to kindle many lights in honor of Shabbat. Rav 岣sda said: A great person will emerge from here. Indeed, Rav Sheizvi emerged from them.

讚讘讬转讛讜 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜转 诪讗讞专讛 讜诪讚诇拽转 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬诪讬砖 注诪讜讚 讛注谞谉 讬讜诪诐 讜注诪讜讚 讛讗砖 诇讬诇讛 诪诇诪讚 砖注诪讜讚 注谞谉 诪砖诇讬诐 诇注诪讜讚 讛讗砖 讜注诪讜讚 讛讗砖 诪砖诇讬诐 诇注诪讜讚 讛注谞谉 住讘专讛 诇讗拽讚讜诪讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 转谞讬谞讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬拽讚讬诐 讜砖诇讗 讬讗讞专:

The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef鈥檚 wife would kindle the Shabbat lights late. Rav Yosef said to her: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淭he pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, departed not from before the people鈥 (Exodus 13:22), this teaches that the pillar of cloud would overlap with the pillar of fire? The pillar of fire would appear slightly before nightfall. And the pillar of fire would overlap with the pillar of cloud, as well. The pillar of cloud would appear slightly before daybreak. Therefore, in lighting the Shabbat lights it is also appropriate to light earlier, beginning Shabbat slightly before dark on Shabbat eve. She thought to kindle the lights much earlier, on Shabbat eve, long before nightfall. An Elder said to her, we learned: As long as he neither lights too early nor too late.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讞讬诐 专讘谞谉 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讘谞讬谉 专讘谞谉 讚诪讜拽讬专 专讘谞谉 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讞转谞讜讜转讗 专讘谞谉 讚讚讞讬诇 诪专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讛讜讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 诪砖转诪注谉 诪讬诇讬讛 讻爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉:

Similar to the reward due one who kindles the Shabbat lights, Rava said: One who loves Sages will have children who are Sages. One who honors Sages will have sons-in-law who are Sages. One who stands in awe of the Sages will himself become a Torah scholar. And if he is not capable and lacks the talent to become a Torah scholar, his statements will be received like the statements of a Torah scholar.

讜诇讗 讘砖诪谉 砖专讬驻讛 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 砖诪谉 砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讛 砖诪谉 砖专讬驻讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇砖专讬驻讛 注讜诪讚 讜讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖诪爪讜讛 注诇讬讜 诇讘注专讜 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讬砖转专讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘砖诪谉 砖专讬驻讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讙讝专讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讟讜 砖讘转

We learned in the mishna that one may not light with burnt oil on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is burnt oil? Rabba said: It is oil of teruma that became ritually impure. And why did they call it burnt oil? Because its burning is imminent, as it is prohibited to eat this oil and one is obligated to burn it. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that one may not light with it on Shabbat? The Gemara explains: Because it is a mitzva to burn it, the Sages issued a decree lest, in doing so, he come to adjust the wick in order to hasten its burning. Abaye said to him: But if what you say is so, that the reason for the prohibition is a concern lest he adjust it, then, on a Festival, when adjusting a wick is permitted, it should be permitted to light with burnt oil. Why then did we learn in the mishna: One may not light with burnt oil even on a Festival? The Gemara answers: It is a decree issued by the Sages prohibiting burning it even on a Festival, due to the prohibition to burn it on Shabbat.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇砖诪讗 讬讟讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 注专讘 砖讘转 注住拽讬谞谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘砖诪谉 砖专讬驻讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注住拽讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘砖诪谉 砖专讬驻讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rav 岣sda said: The reason for the prohibition against lighting a Shabbat lamp with burnt oil is different, as we are not concerned lest one come to adjust the wick. Rather, here, in our mishna, we are dealing with a Festival that fell on Shabbat eve, in which case he must kindle Shabbat lights on the Festival. One may not light a Shabbat lamp with burnt oil on a Festival because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival, a prohibition that applies to teruma as well. The Gemara asks: But from the fact that we learned in the latter clause, i.e., the next mishna, that one may not light with burnt oil on a Festival, by inference, in the first clause of the mishna we are not dealing with a Festival but rather with a standard Shabbat. Rabbi 岣nina from Sura said: This mishna must be understood in the following manner: These are not two distinct halakhot; rather, this mishna was stated employing the didactic style of what is the reason. What is the reason that one may not light with burnt oil on a Festival or on a Festival that falls on Shabbat eve? It is because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival at all.

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 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...
Women's Daf Yomi of Alon Shvut

Shabbat 23- Lighting for Chanukah and Shabbat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS9yWGyP3VE Lighting for Chanukah and Shabbat. Concerns regarding people being suspicious of others not keeping a mitzvah. With Susan Suna...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 23: Like It or Not, People Gossip

Blessing the "commandment" of Chanukah. Lighting at every entrance to prevent suspicions. Pe'ah - leaving gleanings the right way. Also:...

Shabbat 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 23

注砖砖讬转 砖讛讬转讛 讚讜诇拽转 讜讛讜诇讻转 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诪讻讘讛 讜诪讚诇讬拽讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讚诇拽讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讛谞讞讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讗讬 诪讻讘讛 讜诪讚诇讬拽讛 诪讻讘讛 讜诪讙讘讬讛讛 讜诪谞讬讞讛 讜诪讚诇讬拽讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 诪讚拽讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 诇讛讚诇讬拽 谞专 砖诇 讞谞讜讻讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讚诇拽讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

A lantern that continued to burn the entire day of Shabbat, at the conclusion of Shabbat one extinguishes it and lights it again as a Hanukkah light. Granted, if you say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, the requirement to extinguish the lantern and relight it in order to fulfill the mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah light works out well. However, if you say that placing accomplishes the mitzva, this statement, which stated that one extinguishes it and lights it, is imprecise. According to this opinion, it needed to say: One extinguishes it and lifts it from its place and sets it down and lights it, as only by placing the lamp in an appropriate place could one fulfill the mitzva of the Hanukkah light. Furthermore, there is additional proof that lighting accomplishes the mitzva. From the fact that we recite the following blessing over the mitzva of kindling the Hanukkah light: Who has made us holy through His commandments and has commanded us to light the Hanukkah light, the Gemara suggests: Conclude from this that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, as it is over lighting that one recites the blessing. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讚诇拽讛 注讜砖讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗砖讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讚诇讬拽讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 砖讗祝 讛谉 讛讬讜 讘讗讜转讜 讛谞住:

And, the Gemara remarks, now that we say that lighting accomplishes the mitzva, there are practical ramifications. If a deafmute, an imbecile, or a minor, all of whom are of limited intellectual capacity and not obligated in mitzvot, kindled the Hanukkah light, he did nothing in terms of fulfilling the mitzva, even if an adult obligated in mitzvot subsequently set it down in its appropriate place. That is because placing a lit lamp does not constitute fulfillment of the mitzva. The lighting must be performed by a person with full intellectual capacity, obligated in mitzvot. However, a woman certainly may light, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in lighting the Hanukkah light, as they too were included in that miracle of being saved from the decree of persecution.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗讻住谞讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讬砖 讻讬 讛讜讬谞讗 讘讬 专讘 诪砖转转驻谞讗 讘驻专讬讟讬 讘讛讚讬 讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 讘转专 讚谞住讬讘讬 讗讬转转讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讛砖转讗 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻谞讗 讚拽讗 诪讚诇讬拽讬 注诇讬 讘讙讜 讘讬转讗讬:

Rav Sheshet said: A guest is obligated in lighting the Hanukkah light in the place where he is being hosted. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira said: At first, when I was studying in the yeshiva, I would participate with perutot, copper coins, together with the host [ushpiza], so that I would be a partner in the light that he kindled. After I married my wife, I said: Now I certainly need not do so because they light on my behalf in my house.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讛砖诪谞讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讬驻讬谉 诇谞专 讜砖诪谉 讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪专讬砖 讛讜讛 诪讛讚专 诪专 讗诪砖讞讗 讚砖讜诪砖诪讬 讗诪专 讛讗讬 诪砖讱 谞讛讜专讬 讟驻讬 讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讛讚专 讗诪砖讞讗 讚讝讬转讗 讗诪专 讛讗讬 爪诇讬诇 谞讛讜专讬讛 讟驻讬

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the oils are suitable for the Hanukkah lamp, and olive oil is the most select of the oils. Abaye said: At first, my Master, Rabba, would seek sesame oil, as he said: The light of sesame oil lasts longer and does not burn as quickly as olive oil. Once he heard that statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he sought olive oil because he said: Its light is clearer.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诇 讛砖诪谞讬诐 讬驻讬谉 诇讚讬讜 讜砖诪谉 讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讙讘诇 讗讜 诇注砖谉 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讝讜讟专讬 讻诇 讛砖诪谞讬诐 讬驻讬谉 诇讚讬讜 讜砖诪谉 讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讘讬谉 诇讙讘诇 讘讬谉 诇注砖谉 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讝讜讟专讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 讛注砖谞讬诐 讬驻讬谉 诇讚讬讜 讜砖诪谉 讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇 讛砖专驻讬谉 讬驻讬谉 诇讚讬讜 讜砖专祝 拽讟祝 讬驻讛 诪讻讜诇诐:

On a similar note, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: All the oils are suitable for making ink, and olive oil is the most select. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 intention: Did he mean that olive oil is the most select in terms of being the best for use to mix and knead with the soot produced from a fire in manufacturing ink; or did he mean for use to smoke, i.e., burning olive oil to produce smoke is the most select method of producing the soot used in manufacturing ink? Come and hear a resolution to this from that which Rav Shmuel bar Zutrei taught: All oils are suitable for ink, and olive oil is the most select, both to knead and to smoke. Rav Shmuel bar Zutra taught it this way: All types of smoke are good for ink, and olive oil is the most select. Similarly, Rav Huna said: All saps are good for strengthening the ink compound, and balsam sap is the best of all.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讚诇讬拽 谞专 砖诇 讞谞讜讻讛 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讛专讜讗讛 谞专 砖诇 讞谞讜讻讛 爪专讬讱 诇讘专讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讛专讜讗讛 诪讘专讱 砖转讬诐 讜诪讚诇讬拽 诪讘专讱 砖诇砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪讚诇讬拽 诪讘专讱 砖转讬诐 讜专讜讗讛 诪讘专讱 讗讞转 诪讗讬 诪诪注讟 诪诪注讟 讝诪谉 讜谞讬诪注讜讟 谞住 谞住 讻诇 讬讜诪讬 讗讬转讬讛

Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: One who lights a Hanukkah light must recite a blessing. And Rabbi Yirmeya said: One who sees a burning Hanukkah light must recite a blessing because the mitzva is not only to kindle the light but to see the light as well. Therefore, there is room to recite a blessing even when seeing them. Rav Yehuda said: On the first day of Hanukkah, the one who sees burning lights recites two blessings, and the one who lights recites three blessings. From there on, from the second day of Hanukkah, the one who lights recites two blessings, and the one who sees recites one blessing. The Gemara asks: What blessing does he omit on the other days? The Gemara answers: He omits the blessing of time: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time. The Gemara asks: And let us omit the blessing of the miracle: Who has performed miracles. The Gemara answers: The miracle is relevant on all of the days, whereas the blessing: Who has given us life, is only pertinent to the first time he performs the mitzva each year.

诪讗讬 诪讘专讱 诪讘专讱 讗砖专 拽讚砖谞讜 讘诪爪讜转讬讜 讜爪讜谞讜 诇讛讚诇讬拽 谞专 砖诇 讞谞讜讻讛 讜讛讬讻谉 爪讜谞讜 专讘 讗讜讬讗 讗诪专 诪诇讗 转住讜专 专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖讗诇 讗讘讬讱 讜讬讙讚讱 讝拽谞讬讱 讜讬讗诪专讜 诇讱

And what blessing does one recite? He recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments and has commanded us to light the Hanukkah light. The Gemara asks: And where did He command us? The mitzva of Hanukkah is not mentioned in the Torah, so how is it possible to say that it was commanded to us by God? The Gemara answers that Rav Avya said: The obligation to recite this blessing is derived from the verse: 鈥You shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto you, to the right, nor to the left鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:11). From this verse, the mitzva incumbent upon all of Israel to heed the statements and decrees of the Sages is derived. Therefore, one who fulfills their directives fulfills a divine commandment. Rav Ne岣mya said that the mitzva to heed the voice of the Elders of Israel is derived from the verse: 鈥淎sk your father, and he will declare unto you, your Elders, and they will tell you鈥 (Deuteronomy 32:7).

诪转讬讘 专讘 注诪专诐 讛讚诪讗讬 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讜 讜诪砖转转驻讬谉 讘讜 讜诪讘专讻讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪讝诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 注专讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻诇 诪讚专讘谞谉 讘注讬 讘专讻讛 讛讻讗 讻讬 拽讗讬 注专讜诐 讛讬讻讬 诪讘专讱 讜讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讬讛 诪讞谞讬讱 拽讚讜砖 讜诇讬讻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讚讗讬 讚讚讘专讬讛诐 讘注讬 讘专讻讛 住驻拽 讚讚讘专讬讛诐 诇讗 讘注讬 讘专讻讛

Rav Amram raised an objection from that which we learned in a mishna: With regard to doubtfully tithed produce [demai], i.e., grain that was acquired from an am haaretz about which there is uncertainty whether or not he tithed it; one may use it to establish an eiruv, i.e., joining of courtyards and joining of borders, and to establish the merging of alleys, and one recites a blessing before and after eating it, and one invites a quorum for recitation of Grace after Meals after eating it. Although the Sages said that one is required to separate tithes from demai, they allowed it to be used for specific purposes and in exigent circumstances. And they said that one may separate the tithe from demai when he is naked and at dusk Shabbat eve, a time when separating tithes from actual untithed produce [tevel] is prohibited. And if you say that every action instituted by rabbinic ordinance requires a blessing, as fulfillment of rabbinic ordinances is based on the mitzva: You shall not turn aside, here, when he stands naked, how can he recite a blessing? Don鈥檛 we require fulfillment of the mitzva: 鈥淭herefore shall your camp be holy; that He see no unseemly thing in you, and turn away from you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:15)? And the camp is not holy when one recites a blessing in a state of nakedness. Abaye said: There is room to distinguish between the cases: In a case where there is a definite mitzva by rabbinic law, a blessing is required. In a case where there is a rabbinic ordinance instituted due to uncertainty with regard to the circumstances, as in the case of demai, which may or may not have been tithed already, a blessing is not required.

讜讛讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 讚住驻拽 讚讘专讬讛诐 讛讜讗 讜讘注讬 讘专讻讛 讛转诐 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讝讬诇讝讜诇讬 讘讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讜讘 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诪注砖专讬谉 讛谉:

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 the second day of a Festival in the Diaspora a rabbinic ordinance instituted due to uncertainty whether the first day or the second is the actual Festival, and nevertheless a blessing is required? On the second day of the Festival one recites the same blessings as he does on the first. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of the second day of the Festival, the reason that blessings are required is so that people will not treat it with contempt. If Festival blessings were not required on the second day of the Festival, people would take its sanctity lightly. Rava said another reason: Demai is not considered to be an ordinance instituted by the Sages due to uncertainty. In fact, in most cases, an am haaretz tithes. The concern lest they do not tithe is not a full-fledged case of uncertainty. It is merely a case of suspicion for which the Sages did not institute a blessing. That is not the case with regard to the second day of a Festival. Even though it was instituted due to uncertainty, one must recite the Festival blessings. Since it was instituted by the Sages, one is obligated to recite a blessing just as he recites blessings for other rabbinic ordinances.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞爪专 砖讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 驻转讞讬诐 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讬 谞专讜转 (讜讗诪专) 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 讗讘诇 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讗 讞砖讚讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞砖讚讗 讚注诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讞 讗讞转 谞诪讬 诇讬讘注讬 讗讬 讞砖讚讗 讚讘谞讬 诪转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖谞讬 专讜讞讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 诇注讜诇诐 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讗 讚讘谞讬 诪转讗 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讞诇驻讬 讘讛讗讬 讜诇讗 讞诇驻讬 讘讛讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讘讛讗讬 驻讬转讞讗 诇讗 讗讚诇讬拽 讘讛讱 驻讬转讞讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗讚诇讬拽

Rav Huna said: A courtyard that has two entrances requires two lamps, one lamp at each entrance, so that it will be obvious that the residents of this courtyard light properly. And Rava said: We only said this in a case where the two entrances face two different directions. However, if they both face in the same direction one need not light at more than one entrance. The Gemara clarifies Rava鈥檚 statement: What is the reason for this? If you say that it is because those who see the entrance without a lamp burning will harbor suspicion lest he does not kindle the Hanukkah light, whose suspicion concerns us? If you say that the concern is with regard to the suspicion of people who do not live in the city and are unfamiliar with the courtyard鈥檚 tenants, even when both entrances face the same direction let them be required to light at both entrances because visitors are unaware that there are two entrances to that courtyard. And if the concern is with regard to the suspicion of the residents of that city, even when the two entrances face two different directions let them not be required to light at both entrances. The local residents know that only one person lives in the courtyard and will assume that if he did not light at one entrance he surely lit at the other. The Gemara answers: Actually, say that it is because of the suspicion of the residents of that city, and sometimes they pass this entrance and do not pass that one, and they say: Just as he did not light in this entrance, in that second entrance he also did not light. In order to avoid suspicion, it is preferable to light at both entrances.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讞砖讚 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖讘讬诇 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇讛谞讬讞 驻讬讗讛 讘住讜祝 砖讚讛讜 诪驻谞讬 讙讝诇 注谞讬讬诐 讜诪驻谞讬 讘讬讟讜诇 注谞讬讬诐 讜诪驻谞讬 讛讞砖讚 讜诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讻诇讛 诪驻谞讬 讙讝诇 注谞讬讬诐 砖诇讗 讬专讗讛 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖注讛 驻谞讜讬讬讛 讜讬讗诪专 诇拽专讜讘讜 注谞讬 讛专讬 讝讜 驻讗讛

And from where do you say that we are concerned about suspicion? As it was taught in a Tosefta that Rabbi Shimon said: On account of four things the Torah said that one should leave pea, crops for the poor in the corner of his field, specifically at the end of his field. Only after one has cut virtually the entire field should he leave an uncut corner for the poor. He should not designate an area for pea in the middle of the field in the course of cutting the field. The reasons for this ruling are: Due to robbing the poor, and due to causing the poor to be idle, and due to suspicion, and due to the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not wholly reap the corner of your field鈥 (Leviticus 23:22). The Gemara explains: Due to robbing the poor; so that the owner of the house will not see a time when the field is unoccupied and there are no poor people in the area. If he could designate pea as he wished, there is room to suspect that he might say to his poor relative: This is pea, in the place and at the time that he chooses. He would thereby conceal the fact that there is pea in his field from other poor people. The result would be that, for all intents and purposes, he robbed pea from those with whom he did not share the information.

讜诪驻谞讬 讘讬讟讜诇 注谞讬讬诐 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 注谞讬讬诐 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讜诪砖诪专讬谉 注讻砖讬讜 诪谞讬讞 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻讗讛 讜诪驻谞讬 讞砖讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讬讜 注讜讘专讬谉 讜砖讘讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讘讗 诪讗专讛 诇讗讚诐 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 驻讗讛 讘砖讚讛讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讻诇讛 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讻诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪驻谞讬 讛专诪讗讬谉:

And due to causing the poor to be idle; so that the poor, who have no way of knowing when he is going to cut the grain and where in the field he is going to leave the pea, will not be sitting and observing until he designates the pea and constantly saying to themselves: Now the owner of the field is placing pea. Now that he leaves the pea in a defined area at the end of his field, and the poor people know exactly where they can receive their portion, they need not waste their time in anticipation. And due to suspicion; if one leaves the pea in the middle of the field, the poor will come and take their portion immediately when he designates the area of pea. When the owner then continues to cut and harvest the rest of the grain in the field, the pea will not be noticeable. Insisting that he leave pea at the end of the field ensures that passersby will not say: A person who did not leave pea in his field should be cursed. We learned that the fourth reason is due to the verse: You shall not wholly reap. The Gemara wonders: Aren鈥檛 all of these reasons due to: You shall not wholly reap? All of the reasons explain that one may not reap his entire field and must leave pea at the end of his field. Rava said: The meaning of the last reason is that pe鈥檃 is separated that way due to cheaters. There is concern that a person would not leave pea at all. He would claim that he already separated it in the middle of his field and that the poor already came and took it. In order to bolster the mitzva of pea, the Sages instituted that it must be separated specifically at the end of one鈥檚 field. In terms of the discussion in the Gemara, apparently, the desire to avoid arousing suspicion is a factor taken into consideration in determining halakha.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 专讚讬驻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞专 砖讬砖 诇讛 砖谞讬 驻讬讜转 注讜诇讛 诇砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬诇讗 拽注专讛 砖诪谉 讜讛拽讬驻讛 驻转讬诇讜转 讻驻讛 注诇讬讛 讻诇讬 注讜诇讛 诇讻诪讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讗 讻驻讛 注诇讬讛 讻诇讬 注砖讗讛 讻诪讬谉 诪讚讜专讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞讚 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讛 注讜诇讛:

Rav Yitz岣k bar Redifa said that Rav Huna said: Lighting an oil lamp that has two spouts, with one wick placed in each of the spouts, is considered to have fulfilled the obligation of kindling the Hanukkah light for two people. Similarly, Rava said: One who filled a bowl with oil and placed wicks all around it, if he overturned a vessel on top of it, it is considered to have fulfilled the obligation of lighting the Hanukkah light for several people, corresponding to the number of wicks. By overturning a vessel atop the bowl, each wick appears to be burning independently. If one did not overturn a vessel on top of it, he thereby made it appear like a type of bonfire. From afar, the light from all of the flames appear to be a single flame. And it is not even considered to have fulfilled the obligation of lighting the Hanukkah light for one person because the mitzva is specifically to light a flame and not a bonfire.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 谞专 讘讬转讜 讜谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 谞专 讘讬转讜 注讚讬祝 诪砖讜诐 砖诇讜诐 讘讬转讜 谞专 讘讬转讜 讜拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 谞专 讘讬转讜 注讚讬祝 诪砖讜诐 砖诇讜诐 讘讬转讜 讘注讬 专讘讗 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 讜拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 诪讛讜 拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 注讚讬祝 讚转讚讬专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 注讚讬祝 诪砖讜诐 驻专住讜诪讬 谞讬住讗 讘转专 讚讗讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 注讚讬祝 诪砖讜诐 驻专住讜诪讬 谞讬住讗:

Rava said: It is obvious to me that there is a fixed list of priorities. When a person is poor and must choose between purchasing oil to light a Shabbat lamp for his home or purchasing oil to light a Hanukkah lamp, the Shabbat lamp for his home takes precedence. That is due to peace in his home; without the light of that lamp, his family would be sitting and eating their meal in the dark. Similarly, if there is a conflict between acquiring oil to light a lamp for his home and wine for the sanctification [kiddush] of Shabbat day, the lamp for his home takes precedence due to peace in his home. However, Rava raised a dilemma: When the conflict is between oil for a Hanukkah lamp or wine for kiddush of Shabbat day, what is the ruling in that case? Does kiddush of Shabbat day take priority because it is frequent, i.e., it is performed every week, and there is a principle: When there is a conflict between a frequent practice and an infrequent practice, the frequent practice takes precedence? Or, perhaps the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle? After he raised the dilemma, he then resolved it on his own and he ruled that, in that case, the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛专讙讬诇 讘谞专 讛讜讬讬谉 诇讬讛 讘谞讬诐 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讝讛讬专 讘诪讝讜讝讛 讝讜讻讛 诇讚讬专讛 谞讗讛 讛讝讛讬专 讘爪讬爪讬转 讝讜讻讛 诇讟诇讬转 谞讗讛 讛讝讛讬专 讘拽讬讚讜砖 讛讬讜诐 讝讜讻讛 讜诪诪诇讗 讙专讘讬 讬讬谉 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讚讛讜讛 讞诇讬祝 讜转谞讬 讗驻转讞讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 谞讙专讗 讞讝讗 讚讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讘砖专讙讬 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 转专讬 讙讘专讬 专讘专讘讬 谞驻拽讬 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讚讛讜讛 讞诇讬祝 讜转谞讬 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讗 讚专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讞讝讗 讚讛讜讛 专讙讬诇 讘砖专讙讬 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 讙讘专讗 专讘讗 谞驻拽 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬

Rav Huna said: One who is accustomed to kindle lights on Shabbat and Hanukkah will be rewarded and have children who are Torah scholars, who will disseminate the light of Torah. One who is meticulous in performing the mitzva of mezuza merits a beautiful house on which to affix his mezuza. One who is meticulous in performing the mitzva of ritual fringes merits a beautiful garment. One who is meticulous in performing the mitzva of kiddush of the day merits and fills jugs of wine. The Gemara relates: Rav Huna was accustomed to pass by and teach at the entrance of the house of Rabbi Avin the carpenter. He saw that Rabbi Avin was accustomed to kindle many lights in honor of Shabbat. Rav Huna said: Two great men will emerge from here. Indeed, Rav Idi bar Avin and Rav 岣yya bar Avin, his two oldest sons, emerged from their family. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: Rav 岣sda was accustomed to pass by and teach at the entrance of Rav Sheizvi鈥檚 father鈥檚 family home. He saw that Rav Sheizvi鈥檚 father was accustomed to kindle many lights in honor of Shabbat. Rav 岣sda said: A great person will emerge from here. Indeed, Rav Sheizvi emerged from them.

讚讘讬转讛讜 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜转 诪讗讞专讛 讜诪讚诇拽转 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬诪讬砖 注诪讜讚 讛注谞谉 讬讜诪诐 讜注诪讜讚 讛讗砖 诇讬诇讛 诪诇诪讚 砖注诪讜讚 注谞谉 诪砖诇讬诐 诇注诪讜讚 讛讗砖 讜注诪讜讚 讛讗砖 诪砖诇讬诐 诇注诪讜讚 讛注谞谉 住讘专讛 诇讗拽讚讜诪讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 转谞讬谞讗 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬拽讚讬诐 讜砖诇讗 讬讗讞专:

The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef鈥檚 wife would kindle the Shabbat lights late. Rav Yosef said to her: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淭he pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, departed not from before the people鈥 (Exodus 13:22), this teaches that the pillar of cloud would overlap with the pillar of fire? The pillar of fire would appear slightly before nightfall. And the pillar of fire would overlap with the pillar of cloud, as well. The pillar of cloud would appear slightly before daybreak. Therefore, in lighting the Shabbat lights it is also appropriate to light earlier, beginning Shabbat slightly before dark on Shabbat eve. She thought to kindle the lights much earlier, on Shabbat eve, long before nightfall. An Elder said to her, we learned: As long as he neither lights too early nor too late.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讞讬诐 专讘谞谉 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讘谞讬谉 专讘谞谉 讚诪讜拽讬专 专讘谞谉 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 讞转谞讜讜转讗 专讘谞谉 讚讚讞讬诇 诪专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讛讜讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讛讻讬 讛讜讗 诪砖转诪注谉 诪讬诇讬讛 讻爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉:

Similar to the reward due one who kindles the Shabbat lights, Rava said: One who loves Sages will have children who are Sages. One who honors Sages will have sons-in-law who are Sages. One who stands in awe of the Sages will himself become a Torah scholar. And if he is not capable and lacks the talent to become a Torah scholar, his statements will be received like the statements of a Torah scholar.

讜诇讗 讘砖诪谉 砖专讬驻讛 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 砖诪谉 砖专讬驻讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讛 砖诪谉 砖专讬驻讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇砖专讬驻讛 注讜诪讚 讜讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖诪爪讜讛 注诇讬讜 诇讘注专讜 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讟讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讬砖转专讬 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘砖诪谉 砖专讬驻讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讙讝专讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讟讜 砖讘转

We learned in the mishna that one may not light with burnt oil on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is burnt oil? Rabba said: It is oil of teruma that became ritually impure. And why did they call it burnt oil? Because its burning is imminent, as it is prohibited to eat this oil and one is obligated to burn it. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that one may not light with it on Shabbat? The Gemara explains: Because it is a mitzva to burn it, the Sages issued a decree lest, in doing so, he come to adjust the wick in order to hasten its burning. Abaye said to him: But if what you say is so, that the reason for the prohibition is a concern lest he adjust it, then, on a Festival, when adjusting a wick is permitted, it should be permitted to light with burnt oil. Why then did we learn in the mishna: One may not light with burnt oil even on a Festival? The Gemara answers: It is a decree issued by the Sages prohibiting burning it even on a Festival, due to the prohibition to burn it on Shabbat.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇砖诪讗 讬讟讛 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 注专讘 砖讘转 注住拽讬谞谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘砖诪谉 砖专讬驻讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注住拽讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讗讬谉 诪讚诇讬拽讬谉 讘砖诪谉 砖专讬驻讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rav 岣sda said: The reason for the prohibition against lighting a Shabbat lamp with burnt oil is different, as we are not concerned lest one come to adjust the wick. Rather, here, in our mishna, we are dealing with a Festival that fell on Shabbat eve, in which case he must kindle Shabbat lights on the Festival. One may not light a Shabbat lamp with burnt oil on a Festival because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival, a prohibition that applies to teruma as well. The Gemara asks: But from the fact that we learned in the latter clause, i.e., the next mishna, that one may not light with burnt oil on a Festival, by inference, in the first clause of the mishna we are not dealing with a Festival but rather with a standard Shabbat. Rabbi 岣nina from Sura said: This mishna must be understood in the following manner: These are not two distinct halakhot; rather, this mishna was stated employing the didactic style of what is the reason. What is the reason that one may not light with burnt oil on a Festival or on a Festival that falls on Shabbat eve? It is because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival at all.

Scroll To Top